Van Ark Proposes Madera-Corcoran As HSR Starting Point
California High Speed Rail CEO Roelof van Ark today announced his recommendation that the CHSRA board approve a route from Madera to Corcoran, centered on Fresno, as the starting point for construction of California’s HSR project. From the Authority’s press release:
In making his recommendation, which the Authority’s Board of Directors will consider next week, Authority CEO Roelof van Ark noted that the first segment to enter construction would make the best use of the $4.3 billion in currently available construction funds and meet all state and federal legal requirements.
“The decision before the Authority is an important one, but we should all remember that this project is a marathon, not a single stride,” van Ark said. “It’s not about the first 100 yards, the first mile, or even the first 50 miles. It’s about the finish line – building the nation’s first true high-speed rail system, connecting California’s great cities the entire distance between them.”…Spanning about 65 miles, the recommended segment would start near Madera, include the construction of two new stations – one in downtown Fresno and the other east of Hanford – and continue south to Corcoran.
Estimates place the cost of the proposed section at $4.15 billion, which leaves enough money to – if necessary – connect these tracks with existing rail lines as per a federal “independent utility” requirement.
Note that the Authority is now indeed proposing a Hanford/Visalia station – that was considered a possibility, but was not one of the formally adopted stations as of 2008. To conform to the 24-station limit, another station will have to be cut – if there is only one San Fernando Valley station instead of the originally planned two, then the limit is maintained.
What exactly would be constructed on this segment?
The cost of the project accounts for two new stations, right-of-way acquisition, viaduct construction, site preparation, grading, vegetation restoration, rail bridge construction, roadway realignments, relocation of existing railways and utilities. The final track would be ready in 2017.
Sounds good to me. I’m excited that just two years after voters approved the project, we know where it will begin. And by this time next year, construction would be well under way.
Van Ark pointed out that the segment enables further construction to begin to the north or the south as funds become available:
Starting with these first 65 miles – from near where trains will eventually turn west toward San Jose, south through Fresno toward Bakersfield – allows the greatest flexibility to build in either direction as more federal dollars become available, van Ark said.
“Starting here gives us flexibility to build in either direction – north and west to the Bay Area or south to Los Angeles – as more federal dollars become available,” van Ark said. “The funding other states are sending back to Washington – if redirected to California – would allow us to extend initial construction all the way to Bakersfield.”
Makes sense to me. I’m sure some HSR demises will claim this is a “train to nowhere” but as this is just the first place where concrete will be poured and tracks laid, such claims are as nonsensical as opposing the transcontinental railroad because it started from the two ends and worked toward the middle. This first segment will quickly be joined by the others, and as Californians see the project being built, they will quickly demand thte rest of Phase I from SF to Anaheim get started.
The CHSRA board obviously has to approve this at next week’s meeting. I hope they do. It’s a sensible place to start, and will deliver much-needed jobs and benefits to the San Joaquin Valley – as well as getting our long-awaited and desperately needed HSR project under way!
UPDATE: More from the Fresno Bee:
If funding for the project falls short, Barker said, this initial stretch could be connected at the north and south ends to the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks, which are used by Amtrak. Connecting to the BNSF would entail building about 11 additional miles of track.
That, however, is a “worst-case scenario,” rail officials said.
“We are not in the business of building of short piece of track,” Barker said. “We are in the business of building L.A. to San Francisco.”
Again, this too makes sense. This infrastructure should be for HSR – if no other HSR funds materialize, this will have operational utility, but its purpose is to act as a piece of the SF-LA-Anaheim bullet train system, and it’s good that the Authority is committed to that vision.
Sounds good to me also. Next, on to San Jose and Bakersfied.
Two questions:
1) Will the CHSRA buy rolling stokc just to run on this segment?
2) Will Amtrak’s San Joaquin be able to run on it until it’s part of a longer HSR route?
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
1) From what I’ve heard, no, they aren’t going to buy HSR rolling stock just for this segment.
2) This segment isn’t meant to be completed until 2017. By then connecting sections should be under construction, as well. Unless no further funding materializes, this section will not stand alone.
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
And to finish 2): Therefore, probably not, it’s just a backup plan.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
We have just posted our report about “Plan B” – this pre-dates today’s announcement but is still consistent.
http://www.calhsr.com/uncategorized/the-high-speed-rail-authoritys-plan-b/
While it is encouraging to see they are starting with a more southern route, it makes little sense to connect Fresno to essentially nowhere. The track will “end” north of Fresno and “end” in Corcoran to the south, with a station in Hanford? The Bakersfield Amtrak station was designed with high-speed rail in mind, and while not elevated, could accommodate the ridership. Save money by not building the Hanford station (for the time being) and connect the two largest cities in the Valley, just in case this is all they end up being able to do.
Note that the Authority is now indeed proposing a Hanford/Visalia station
Are you sure about this? The original proposal for the segment included the construction of temporary platforms east of Hanford for use by the San Joaquins. Is this what they’re referring to here?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
You know, that might just be the case. I’m not entirely sure – I wasn’t able to make the conference call this AM – so I’ll amend the post accordingly.
Jon Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
The relevant text is as follows:
In the interim, Amtrak San Joaquin’s would offer “independent utility” coming from Merced on the existing BNSF tracks, and connecting to the new alignment at Borden in Madera County, leaving the new alignment at Corcoran in Kings County and continuing on to Bakersfield. A temporary Amtrak station platform would be constructed in Hanford.
There is no mention of a Hanford HSR station in the proposal. The press release is indeed confusing- ‘two stations’ implies two stations, not one shiny new HSR station and one set of temporary platforms.
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
The station at Hanford is called “Kings/Tulare Regional Station” on this map. Looks like it’s meant to be an actual HSR station.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:42 am
Yes, if you have a central city station at Fresno and one at Bakersfield, you should have an outer suburban station somewhere in between. The intersection of 43 and 198 seems as good as any other for that purpose.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
My understanding is that this would indeed be an HSR station at Hanford, though it could be used as a San Joaquins station if no further HSR track is laid.
Jon Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
The Fresno Bee report does indeed suggest that it will be a HSR station.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
That would seem to be a minimum requirement to release the state bond funding. I aint no lawyer, but an HSR station and a temporary station would seem to be wide open to challenge.
Jon Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
To clear this up, Appendix A of the Board Meeting Agenda just posted explicitly refers to a HSR Kings/Tulare Regional Station.
Walter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
As long as this station can function for HSR, I don’t think they need to make any promises about future train service to Hanford.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:46 am
Juggling two different commitments ~ the state bonding commitment of two HSR stations on a segment to be funded, and the ARRA independent utility.
In the HSR station mix, it’d serve the role of central CV outer suburban station.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Well, congrats to Hanford/Visalia et al. IIRC they’ve been fighting to get a station.
The redundant station in the San Fernando Valley can most certainly be removed from the plans (they have Metrolink).
Elizabeth Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Also noticed that plans only include 2 tracks in Fresno. Original plans had 4 tracks through station area for through trains. Anyone know anything about this?
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Yeah, two tracks for right now. Wouldn’t this explain the discrepancy you guys had called out with respect to the budget for that segment? Where it was budgeted for two tracks but the plans called for four?
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:51 am
That makes sense … there’s no skipping Fresno until SF and LA can be connected by a Limited, and the skipping tracks don’t need a platform, so they only need to allow space in the footprint for the Express tracks to pass around.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:23 am
What are technical issues of adding two tracks later considering that aerial is 60 foot structure and will need to allow for sidings/platforms etc?
In general, we are happy to see less aerial now, considering the fact they are planning to build viaducts to meet weight requirements of current Amtrak trains but do have some questions as to implications for two construction periods.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
The technical issues are not bad if you’re adding the new tracks on the *outside* of the old ones, and you used outside platforms on the original two tracks. The center viaduct will carry the center two tracks, two platforms with buildings underneath can be built either side of it, and two “outer viaducts” can be built when four tracks are needed.
I’m hoping they can make decent station designs, because a lot of the current airport-inspired designs are bullshit. Platforms above, elevators and escalators to platform, waiting room and front entrance underneath, leave it at that.
jimsf Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
should this be sufficient for any aerial station?
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
In layout, if its a two platform or a platform island station … though as far as the Stalinesque blocks of concrete design, it could be prettified a bit.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Under any realistic operating scenario, 2 tracks is quite plenty at Fresno station. Even with the addition of an SF-LA express, the local only gets in the way if the scheduling is bad, or frequency is ridiculously high. Much better to build passing track where trains are running ground-level.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
California kind of voted for a specific transit to SF/LA and 5 minute headways, no excuses, which kind of obligates the design of a system that allows any express to be running five minutes after any local and keep going on its way.
If between now and the opening of a complete section between the CV and either the LA Basin or the Bay, transit speeds can be achieved to allow the LA/SF transit to be met with a stop at Fresno, then the benefit side of that upgrade would include the avoided cost of the express viaduct.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
There’s nothing that requires CAHSR to be able to run an express 5 minutes after a local. It’s only obligated to be able to run trains every 5 minutes – no mention of local vs. express.
It may be worth noting that the Union Pacific end of the original transcontinental line started in a place that could have been described as “nowhere”–Omaha, Nebraska. At that time, Omaha was a raw frontier city; the only way to get rolling stock, engines, and track material there was by river; it would take the simultaneous construction of another railroad, the Chicago & Northwestern, to make an all-rail route to the east possible.
As it was, that railroad had to cross a lot of “nowhere” for years before enough settlers came in; parts of it across Wyoming are still a lot of “nowhere,” as is the meeting point at Promontory Summit, Utah, both now and in 1869. . .
Of course, you wouldn’t know all this to just look at it today. . .or would you?
http://www.nps.gov/gosp/index.htm
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=76171&nseq=33
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?offset=0&where=search|-2|-2|-2||-2|golden spike historic site|15|1||||||||-2|-2||-2|-2|||15|-2|-2||||||1||1||||&newdisplay=4
Bret Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
I understand that if the entire system is built, then the “nowhere” statement I made earlier is null and void. My point was that the argument is being made that if there is no additional funding, the constructed segment will have to stand alone. While I suppose it is within the realm of possibility that the City of Corcoron (whose population of 17,000 is literally 95% prison inmates) could grow into the megatropolis that Omaha, Nebraska is, my argument is that IF this ends up being the only segment built, it makes more sense to connect two large, already-thriving cities rather than connecting one populous city to a rural destination. Now, I realize that the 2nd station is being proposed for Hanford, not Corcoran, but Hanford’s population is only 50,000, and even if you combine it with Visalia’s population, it’s still less than half of Bakersfield’s. I hope I’m wrong and that the entire system gets built, I’m just arguing for a more sensible first segment should the worst happen.
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
While I was in favor of Merced-Fresno, I think that this is a good solution, as well. Either section, if it is left standing alone due to lack of funding, would cut trip times for the San Joaquins by a fair amount.
datacruncher Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
While the population numbers might seem small, the Hanford/Visalia area uses the current San Joaquins at a high per capita rate compared to most other areas in the state.
2009 Amtrak boardings by station
Bakersfield – 395,254
Hanford – 182,446
Corcoran – 25,749
Fresno – 334,966
http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/CALIFORNIA09.pdf
James Fujita Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Air service from Los Angeles to either Fresno or Visalia sucks. The population is growing. And it’s not all farmers and farmworkers, either. Highway 99 is getting crowded. I suspect a lot of HSR traffic will come from the Central Valley.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Corcoran has a population of about 26,000 people, and generates 25,000 boardings per year? Of those 26,000 people, 13,000 are prisoners? And some of those prisoners are among the most infamous and cruel of the criminal population? Good grief, you’ve got a true travel population of only 13,000 people generating 25,000 trips per year (about 68 per day for 365 days), and that doesn’t include the through passengers who stay on the train when it stops in Corcoran! And all of this is with relatively pokey (but decently frequent) Amtrak trains, and at an unmanned station to boot!
Granted, I wonder if a fair part of that patronage is family members visiting prisoners in Corcoran, but it still puts the lie to the idea that Americans won’t ride trains!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corcoran,_California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Joaquin_(Amtrak)
Interesting what you stumble on when looking for something else:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_Lake_Shore_Railroad
I have long disputed the idea that population density is necessary for travel density; this was demonstrated in the old days when railroads were more prominent than now, especially when you consider where some branches, narrow-gauges, and interurbans ran. This is a modern example.
Robert, the Repugnant Ones, or at least that party’s most prominent members, are clearly in the wrong about rail service. Considering travel problems, peak oil problems, and the fact that we are effectively held hostage by oil kings, dictators, tyrants, and corporations should make this an issue that you and your Democrats can wave the flag on. You can do it for real, which is more than I can say for some of the fakes in the Republican party.
You live out there, you are much better connected politically than I am, and you know your people far better than I do. What will it take to get them onto this and start waving the flag?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Photo references:
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/corcoran.htm
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/hanford.htm
Maybe I’m a stick in the mud, but that new station in Bakersfield–ugh!
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/bakersfield.htm
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Getting on a photo kick here with that station site:
Trenches–ugh! Why would anyone force passengers to travel in a sewer or a ditch?
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/reno.htm
Harpers Ferry, W.Va., one of two stations in my area (the other is Martinsburg):
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/harpersferry.htm
Alderson, W.Va., on the former C&O, built in the 1890s; Alderson is a neat little town, looking like something a model railroader would build. There is a women’s prison nearby; one of its best known inmates in recent years was Martha Stewart.
http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/alderson.htm
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 6:39 am
I guess I have to admit to being prejudiced to traditional design, being a steam fan and all. . .
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Trenches are OK, although the opposite of scenic, and probably a dreadful choice for a tourist town like Reno. By contrast I wouldn’t mind being in a trench through Gary, Indiana (which doesn’t have one). :-)
Sometimes trenches are used to construct grand station designs, where the station approach appears to be (or is) a tunnel, but the station itself has a giant airy trainshed over the trench. I t’s fairly common outside the US for big-city terminals, but I haven’t seen this used in the US since the original Penn Station was demolished, however.
jimsf Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 5:02 am
The station in BFD is actually very nice. I only get to dream of having such a nice facility in which to work.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
I have eclectic architectural tastes. The Bakersfield station is really very nice. Natural light, *high ceilings*, it would have a sort of post-modern Great Hall feel to it.
You want ugly, look at the once-ubiquituous Amshacks, still present at stations nationwide, or the stations in PA which just have bus shelters…. anything where you’re waiting in a tiny, crowded-feeling building, or outside, *that’s* bad design. The rather large Minneapolis-St. Paul Midway station is an exceptional case of awful — for a really very busy station, it has the most horrible atmosphere, being a “giant Amshack” pretty much.
That site with photos of all the stations in the US has been incredibly useful for figuring out what I am going to be “arriving at”, incidentally.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
IF there is only one segment built, then there is more net transport benefit to allowing for accelerated (110mph or 125mph) Amtrak passage that reduces the transit time Fresno to San Francisco than there is to only> accelerating Bakersfield / SF.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
There is money set aside in the funding to connect to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe on a worst-case scenario so no the route just wont deadend in Corcoran
Fresno is a good example of the “doughnut hole” in our transportation system. At a distance of 255 miles from Los Angeles, 166 miles from Sacramento, and 183 miles from San Francisco, Fresno is too far away to be easily reachable by car, and too close to be efficiently served by air. It’s great that the Fresno station will be one of the first built—-Next step—- start adding stations and get rid of the “doughnut hole”.
Sounds great to me too.
OT, but VERY cool: Cooley concedes California attorney general race.
J. Wong Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Also, McNerney and Costa were declared winners.
Donk Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Why is this cool, aside from the not so clever pun?
J. Wong Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Cooley, Harmer, and Videk were all Republicans, and the latter two were definitely against HSR. None of the House seats in California switched to the Republicans, and all top-level state offices from the Governor on down are in Democratic hands.
James Fujita Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Not only was Vidak against HSR, but Costa is very much for HSR. He pushed for high-speed rail in the Central Valley, and I’m glad he did.
Donk Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Right, so I never heard anything about Cooley being against HSR.
Here’s a question on funding: Didn’t the Authority say they would need only $3.312 billion to construct precisely this segment? Why is it now $4.3 billion? For $4.3 billion they said they could extend all the way to Shafter, after all.
Bret Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
could be the proposed station in Hanford?
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
For $1 billion? That must be one hell of a station.
Bret Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
how else do you encourage ridership in Hanford? “Come see our $1 Billion train station.”
James Fujita Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Include a shuttle to bus to the local Japanese art museum
Dan Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
for $1 billion, they could make a good dent in the TBT, I doubt the Hanford station is the reason.
Jon Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
The estimate is $4.15 billion, with $150 million set aside in case they need to connect the tracks to BNSF. But that’s still $850 million unaccounted for.
John Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
The articles mentioned that trains will be in “test” around 2015 with tracks “ready” (for “revenue’ operation?) in 2017.
So does this $850M include electrification infrastructure?
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
I couldn’t find anything on it. It’s very odd.
Alan F Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 6:49 am
$850 million sounds close to a 20% reserve amount. This will be the first segment to start construction. There will be a learning curve for the CA HSR staff, contractors, engineers, foremen, and crew building what will be the first 220 mph class tracks in the US. There WILL be surprises and unexpected costs as they get through that learning curve. There could also be cost increases from design and construction changes due to changes in regulatory requirements or resulting from engineering reviews for things like earthquake resistance, materials, and so on.
Given the political environment surrounding the HSR program, if you were in charge, you really would not want to have to go back to the state or federal government and publicly ask for another $200 million to complete the segment. Having a decent reserve amount should prevent having to place the entire program at risk because of a cost overrun in the first segment with lessons learned that will get applied to keep costs down in future segments. Once they are close to completion on the construction, the remaining parts of the reserve can be placed towards other segments.
Building the first segment in the valley makes sense from a construction standpoint. Start with an easier to build segment so the contractors, work crew, engineers, CA HSR staff can gain experience on the design and construction without the curve balls they will face on the segments to San Francisco or in LA or the considerable engineering challenges of the Bakersfield to Palmdale and Palmdale to the San Fernando segments.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:59 am
There’s no loss in coming in under budget, since the 50:50 match was state capability, not an ARRA requirement, and the Federal funding will certainly all be expended, and the 80:20 state match on the second tranche of Federal funding.
So come in $500m under budget, for example, that is all state bond funding, and then if there is 80:20 funding available, it leverages to a further $2.5b.
A 20% project contingency would seem to be quite prudent, in the circumstances.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:34 am
There were already significant contingency funds built in to previous estimates. You can see from August 2010 budget (pages 11 and 12 of http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Annotated-source-documents-CARRD-Central-Valley.pdf )
there was $332 million of allocated contingency and $210 million of unallocated and the total came to $3.024 billion. In this case, you add a hanford basic station, but you downgrade the fresno station substantially. No clue where extra $1 billion + in costs have come from, except perhaps in right of way costs and utility relocation. These looked low in original estimates.
We have requested the detailed budget info via a public records request so hopefully this will be released (and preferably posted on the Authority’s website).
In our report http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Report_CARRD-_Central_Valley_Plan_B-November-2010.pdf , we highlight the issues with making the tracks compatible with current San Joaquin equipment. We would like to be able to propose a less wasteful “plan b”. Any ideas out there?
YesonHSR Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Yes this does seem to be something that is changed since just August 2010 when they applied for the additional high-speed rail funds..The ARRA of 3.3Billion was supposed to be enough to cover this section with the additional 1.4 needed to bring it all the way to Bakersfield.. though they were short 400 million from what they requested that should build more than the 67 miles proposed in this news release
Alan F Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:22 am
So are they just being very conservative on the budget with a large reserve for building the first segment?
Assuming the board agrees to start with the Madera-Corcoran segment, is there a good guess estimate on how much additional federal funding combined with matching bond funds and maybe some state transportation funds to build the second segment south to Bakersfield? It will be important to maintain momentum, so it would help if in the next year, CHSRA could announce after an additional grant of federal funding, that the 2nd segment to Bakersfield will begin shortly after the 1st segment construction starts.
Peter Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:19 am
“Any ideas out there?”
Yes, fund PTC between Bakersfield, Sacramento, and Oakland, and have the FRA permit Amtrak California to run non-FRA-compliant (i.e. much lighter) equipment for the San Joaquins. That way they wouldn’t have to overengineer the aerials.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
It would be nice to see the detailed budgeting documents to figure out what the extra money is for. Figure quite a lot for the Hanford station, but not a billion dollars.
I agree with Peter’s suggestion of funding PTC so as to use lightweight equipment….
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
To me, its either electrification of a test track segment or contingencies on contingencies, and I’d lean to the second. They are, after all, doing Year of Expenditure budgeting rather than year of plan budgeting with cost adjustments … and the cost if you budget high is nil, while the cost if you budget low is a substantial headache and possible exposure to political ambush.
And after all, if the FRA accepts the basis for the budgeting, and it comes in 20% under budget in the event, it would mean that the real California state match is 50:30 = 63:37 instead of 50:50 … but the minimum state matches for the two tranches of funding are 100:0 and 80:20, resp., and 65:35 is still miles ahead of anyone else, so it’d be hard to imagine that the FRA would kick up a fuss over a very cautious project reserve on the first stage,
Peter Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Here’s an idea to save money up to a certain point: Delay building the aerials through Fresno as long as possible. Then, if it looks like more funding will appear to expand the system, you can build the aerials to the lighter HSR train specs instead of the FRA-dinosaur specs.
Not sure what the delay would mean in terms of cost of construction.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Since the funding is a dollar grant, without cost or price inflation adjustments built in, the money you save on possible reducing the size of the supports to the central two tracks, you risk losing to inflation of construction costs, especially if there are two or three oil price spikes in the coming decade.
Start on whichever side has environmental clearance, get environmental clearance on the other side to allow the whole first segment to be built, chase whatever additional funds may become available to extend the corridor to the outskirts of Bakersfield. If the Wye gets settled, push up through the Wye to Merced.
Then decide whether to strike south or strike north and push through to one of the ends of Stage 1.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
You’re almost certainly right, it’s probably project reserve. Extreme conservatism with project reserve amounts has become common these days, because you get bashed so bad if you go even a little over-budget, but if you go UNDER budget, everyone loves you.
YESONHSR Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
The Bee states they want to begin testing in 2015..So maby that now includes the power systems and train controls
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Did they actually ever say they were going to construct precisely this segment?
They say in their documents that since they get less than they applied for in the most recent rounds, they went all along the CV alignment from north to south to find sections that fit the requirements within the budget. Merced gets hammered in the criteria since the UP/BNSF alignment choice has not been made and if it ends up UP, then there’s no practicable way to connect it for independent utility within the funds available.
So I guess this seals the deal for Fresno as the maintenance hub?
Bret Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
If Fresno gets to be the transportation hub, the maintenance hub needs to go to Kern County, whose sites are far better than Fresno’s.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Doesn’t seem like it would … the maintenance hub is not needed for construction to commence, its needed for rail service to commence, and while the next two years are likely to see little or not HSR funding, there’s no reason to rule out the prospect of seeing more from 2013.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
With the Midwest states returning some of the money that should be money coming up about April or May… and we will see if the high-speed rail funding in the 2011 budget is left at the same amount.. for all the teapot whistling and etc. etc. They still have to go through the Senate and the President and Sen. Boxer is sitting on the transportation committee in the Senate.
Alan F Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:05 am
The FY11 Transportation bill passed by the House has only $1.4 billion for HSIPR. The bill pending in the Senate has $1 billion for HSIPR. If they somehow manage to pass an omnibus FY11 appropriations bill during the lame duck session, odds are that the HSIPR funds will be in the $1 to $1.4 billion range. I would think many of the Democrats and some of the surviving moderate Republicans will be strongly motivated to get the FY11 appropriations passed, so they can protect projects in their states & districts for at least the FY11 cycle.
As for the $400 million that is almost certain to come back from Ohio and $810 million (minus design study work) that is likely to come back from Wisconsin, the governors/gov-elects in IL, NY, and CT have also publicly asked for some of those funds. Some of that money can go a long way in further improvements to the Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Detroit, New Haven-Springfield MA, NY Empire, PA Keystone corridors. It will likely get divided up among the already funded corridors with CA HSR getting some, but nowhere near all.
Donk Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:28 am
But this $1.21B is also a prime candidate to be pulled back by congress.
Alan F Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:56 am
I’m sure some of the House Republicans will try, but the Senate and Obama are not likely to go along with rescinding the funds. The Republicans may try to put language rescinding the funds in future appropriation bills or in a bill raising the national debt ceiling, but I would hope Obama will stand firm and realize that he can’t blink first next year when it comes to dealing with the Republicans.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:01 am
The biggest possible early tranche 3 is if Florida sends back their funds, but while there is noise about that, OTOH Disney wants the HSR, and there are plenty of State Legislators in Florida on both sides of the aisle that take Disney’s phone calls.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:17 am
I think FLA is a go for constuction…some whinners just like out here but also big backers
This is great news. From Van Ark’s comments, this definitely implies that all construction will start inside and go out towards the end points. This is great, as it makes no sense spending a nickel on Anaheim, SF, or Merced until you get the LA-SJ part done. It is nice to see CASHRA make some practical decisions, hopefully this pattern will continue.
The presentation materials for next week’s board meeting are now posted at
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/2010_December.aspx
It includes the details on this recommended 1st segment.
well no matter what was chosen, you knew some people would be unhappy…
http://cardoza.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=87§iontree=6,87&itemid=699
Rep. Cardoza Calls High Speed Rail Authority’s Route Recommendation “Thanksgiving Day Fraud”
MERCED, CA – Congressman Dennis Cardoza strongly criticized the High Speed Rail Authority’s announcement today that recommends selection of Corcoran-to-Borden as the route for initial construction of the high speed rail project, calling for a complete investigation of the process.
The recommendation was made by the Authority’s staff to the board members and will be considered at a board meeting on December 2, 2010.
“This last-minute bait-and-switch tactic is a Thanksgiving Day fraud. It completely eliminates the Merced station, which is in violation of Proposition 1A, and completely eliminates the entire Northern San Joaquin Valley from Phase I,” said Congressman Cardoza.
“The Authority staff has never vetted the Corcoran-to-Borden route with the public, and instead has wasted the community’s time and good will with endless public workshops and meetings on the other routes. This deceit harms the long standing trust and support that the Merced community and others in the Northern Valley have provided. This will completely undermine future support of the project.”
“The staff recommendation is fundamentally flawed. Building the first leg of the high speed train from Corcoran to Borden turns a blind eye to the public’s concern over the lack of enough ridership to justify expenditure of billions of dollars and is a waste of public funds. What kind of ridership figures does the Authority expect to see with trains running between Corcoran and Borden? If this is how the system is going to be built, we need a full investigation of the process.”
BruceMcF Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
“It completely eliminates the Merced station, which is in violation of Proposition 1A” … in what sense?
More to the point, what is he smoking? I thought I’d read a story saying that Prop went down to defeat.
Victor Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
He gambling on Peoples general ignorance, That’s what He’s smoking and Yes this is Great news indeed, One segment down and more to complete, Damn the Nimbys and Full Speed Ahead.
YESONHSR Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
sour grapes and uncalled for..we are building a statewide system and Merced leg will come along soon..this might be more for the base which seems headed towards Fresno now
YESONHSR Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
He also forgot the UP and its stance with the 2011ROD coming up..they still dont have the exact route between Merced and Fresno laid down.
Rep Devin Nunes continues to bash HSR in Tulare and Costa’s narrow margin has Republicans fired up to oust him in 2012. Ironically, with the Hanford station the surprise winners here are Kings and Tulare County where right wing farmers rule and they despise those evil Fresno city liberals.
James Fujita Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Yeah, it is a bit ironic. Of course, Palo Alto NIMBYs also helped.
Still, Visalia has 120,000 people, Hanford has 53,000 and Tulare has 55,000. Those evil Fresno city liberals are moving south ;)
YesonHSR Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
True the Ninbys probably sealed the decision to build in the Valley and I’m very glad of this is truly the spine of the system and will grow out.. the area of it is the Bay Area past prop 1A in the 62 to 68% range higher than anywhere else in the state will probably be the last to get connected to phase 1 because of the NIMBYs… millions inconvenienced for a few
YesonHSR Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Irony of it is…the Bay Area!!…..
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:10 am
That’s not clear ~ which is the cheaper section, San Jose to the the Wye or Burbank to Bakersfield?
Connect the CV to either side and you can start running HSR service, generating revenue, tightening up ridership modeling, and all in all establishing the basis for revenue bonding. And Merced to Bakersfield is as far as you can build on Stage 1 in the CV with “independent utility” from an upgraded San Jaoquin.
While the two proposed outer segments could proceed incrementally, it seems that San Jose to the Wye and Burbank to Bakersfield have to be built to complete enough of a stretch to actually start operating HSR services.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Their close in the cost.. I’m sure will come down to what is easier to get permitted and built as here in the Bay Area we have the Nimbys and the Peninsula and our friends the planning and conservation league and TRAC acting like Pacheco Pass route is the worst possible thing in the world and high-speed rail should not be built unless they get their choice. Otherwise the little dears say it just simply won’t work!
Elizabeth Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Probably the cheapest connection is actually Merced to San Jose, via an Altamont Corridor routing. There is some chance they could actually get FTA new starts money for that, given it would officially be a commuter rail line.
Peter Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:52 am
But they would run into the same NIMBY problems they’re currently experiencing in PAMPA, and they would NEVER meet the shovel-ready deadline.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Also, Union Pacific?
I think Burbank to Bakersfield is the route with the least *trouble* involved in getting it constructed. Perhaps this is hilarious, given the multiple tunnels required, but there you are.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
If they are similar in cost, Burbank/Bakersfield is the strongest incremental transport benefit, since its an upgrade on bus service rather than rail service, even if the rail service is transfer in Merced for a 3hr ride to Oakland.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
I meant cheaper in a commercial finance sense, not in a public budgeting sense ~ saving capital costs at the expense of undermining operating revenue is not necessarily the ideal way to generate maximum revenue bonds.
I just did a quick skim of the board documents. This one is probably a little more detail that people will want to read.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9439
It appears to me Merced’s location north of the Wye resulted in staff scoring it low since it is not directly on the main Phase 1 route. Also with a final route not chosen in that area, staff seems concerned that some alternatives near Merced might not easily provide independent utility because connectors might be hard to do at reasonable cost and time.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Thanks for looking into that. I’ve been blogging from the passenger seat of my car on my iPad, not exactly the best way to pore over documents. Cardoza might be pissed, but the scoring seems clear and legitimate.
Donk Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Looks like a major point is this sentence: “This alternative also offers the best opportunity for the Authority to accommodate further funds from the FRA, in case money from other states becomes available, as connectivity with the BNSF alignment can be done with relative ease, as HSR runs adjacent to BNSF.”
In other words, they had to pick a section of track where, if they got additional funds, they could keep on building it longer. If they had Bako at one end and Fresno at the other, an additional $100M or so might not have been enough to satisfy “indpendent utility”. So good thing they are looking forward here and trying to increase their odds of getting additional funds.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Which could be coming as early as the spring if Ohio and Wisconsin carry through on their plans for returning the money.. it should not take much more to get into Bakersfield. And 2.3 billion more to get it up to Merced none of that is impossible even in this current uncertainty.
The only segment that would make sense to start with (assuming that it has to be in the valley) should have been FNO-BFL. At least someone would use it while the next segments get the necessary funding.
What do you think the ridership is between Corcoran and Fresno? 10 passengers daily? If you’re lucky!! This is actually the first HSR segment that doesn’t start from the most congested and dense segment in the state/country. I hope it’s not going to end up as a track to nowhere.
http://www.ub.edu/irea/working_papers/2010/201003.pdf
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
The only way there would be passengers traveling between Corcoran and Fresno would be if no other segments get funded.
When we get more funding the other sections will be connected and true HSR service would begin.
If nothing else gets funded, then Amtrak San Joaquins would benefit tremendously from overall travel time savings, which would lead to a large increase in ridership for them overall.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Keep in mind this is not an independent “segment” but simply the first piece of a long rail corridor. As Peter notes, this isn’t about anticipated ridership on this section, but about where the best place is to start construction given the Prop 1A and ARRA mandates.
synonymouse Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Perfectly idiotic. The Repubs will rightly have a field day with the multi-billion train from nowhere to nowhere. The real question is what is LaHood smoking. Wonder if Jay Leno will pick up on this one.
You have to wonder how Pelosi let this major pr gaffe get past her. Or perhaps to quote a line from Godfather 1: “The Don is slipping.”"
peninsula Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
I can’t wait to see the ridership and revenue projections for this USABLE SEGMENT showing how it alone will be able to operate as a usable segment without federal state or local operating subsidy. The voters of the state of california were perfectly clear that anything built had to meet stiff criteria for operational independence. This is fabulous. Hilarious really.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Pen, would you be interested in telling us how profitable the California highway system is? Or would that be too embarassing?
peninsula Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Not embarassing at all. Roads are subsidized because they are of actual value to the people and the economy of the state. People and Goods move freely across the state on roads – east west north south, and every direction in between. The beauty is everyone can use them, they take you anywhere you need to go, on any timeline you choose.
And, I’m sorry maybe I missed it, but is there a State Law that says the California Highway system is required to be profitable? Which one? No. We agree to subsidize roads – because we value them. The fact is that the VOTERS of the state of California don’t value high speed rail enough to agree to subsidize it. Just not worth it.
Roads can take people everywhere they want to go – trains go in straight lines and are prisoners of their fixed tracks.
And unless you live in a train station you will actually have to get in a car (maybe a bike if you’re an overachiever) – on a road – to get to where you actually need to go once you get to Visalia or Corcoran HSr station. Or do you suggest we pull up all the pavement and have people drive around on dirt?
The fact is ALL the roads will still be there once HSR is built, and yes, you and I (assuming you even live in California) will have to pay to keep them maintained too.
By the way, will the prison population and their Families in Corcoran be forking over 3X (at least) the cost of today’s train ticket? hmmmm. Again, can’t WAIT to see the chock-full-of-lies ridership revenue study, and business plan their high priced PR firm will be upchucking for this usable segment.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Rail, freight, low speed, high speed whatever is also of value to the people and the economy of the state. It’s the cheapest way to increase capacity on the corridors. It’s the fastest way to move people along the corridors. Sounds pretty valuable to me.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Pen, Pen, I really hate to be so critical, because you’ve mentioned being a family man and all, and doing so on limited resourses; that says you are a good person, a good citizen in that regard. We have too few of those. But your comments above indicate extreme prejudice, ignorance and stupidity on the real cost of the road system, and of gasoline, and the real security threat our current transportation system has become.
I don’t think we have a choice. It’s go back to the 1940s with improvements (and I think the 1940s were in many ways a pretty good time culturally, if the music and other things from then are any indication), or die.
I am probably as old fashioned as anybody you know, possibly more so–and I am not alone in this assessment of the oil situation:
http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html
http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf
http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_TM2005_45.pdf
Have a nice Thanksgiving, even in spite of this.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
I would put it differently from D.P.Lubic, in that I don’t think shifting back to trains needs to feel ilke “going back to the 1940s”. Those improvements are a pretty big deal. ADA-compliant trains and stations also benefit people with strollers and so forth. The toxic emissions of the 1940s can be pretty nearly eliminated with modern designs. We can put railroads on better, straighter alignments than in the 1940s.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:00 am
Could we really afford to drive, if we had honest accounting?
General Link to HIghway Statistics, a USDOT publication:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/index.cfm
Editions list:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/hsspubs.cfm
2008 general link; this is the most current one available:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/
For me, the most interesting charts and tables are in Section 9, “Revenue.”
Table HF-10, “Funding of Highways and Disposition of Revenues;” take note that motor fuel taxes and tolls, the two direct methods of charging drivers, total something over $94 billion, but that expenditures came to over $182 billion! Direct user fees thus only paid for 51% of total highway expenditures; the rest came from property taxes, sales taxes, etc., in other words, a subsidy.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hf10.cfm
Motor fuel tables:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hf10.cfm
Total highway motor fuel use was 170,765,303,000 gallons (or 171 billion for round numbers–I think I’m getting my decimals right).
If you subtract the highway revenues of $94 billion formt the expenditures of $182 billion, you come up with a shortfall of $88 billion. Dividing this $88 billion by the rounded consumption of 171 billion gallons works out to a subsidy of about 51.5 cents per gallon. This is on top of the $2.99 (local price) or whatever else you pay. It is also based only on cash flow; it doesn’t include additional costs, such as deferred maintenance, costs of poor design (an example near where I live consists of a brand new bridge, costing millions of dollars, leading into a town square with a four-way stop sign that is a notorious area bottleneck; a proper solution would have included a bypass around the town, but for lack of money and other reasons, this was not pursued, general poor construction practices, and external costrs such as the effects of air pollution, and other things such as oil wars. My own seat-of-the-pants estimate is that gasoline really costs us about $7 per gallon, hidden in our income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, insurance costs and so on. As noted above, some other people have done more sophisticated estimates for a range of scenarios.
It is also interesting that even the most basic estimate of subsidy cost per gallon is not in the Highway Statistics reports; you have to work it out yourself, as shown above.
Another link from Highway Statistics, the status of the Federal Highway Trust Fund (originally set up to fund the construction of the Interstate system):
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/balchrt.cfm
That thing only has money left in it because it has been bailed out for three years now with general revenue money.
Other charts and tables on the Federal Trust Fund:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/fe210.cfm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hf10a.cfm
One thing should be mentioned here, and that is that some people think transit diversion from the trust fund are to blame. That’s a tempting target, but wrong; the diversions have been there since 1985, but the regular deficits didn’t start until 2000. At that, the transit component remained constant at about $2 billion per year, both before and after the deficits started; the trust fund deficit can be blamed entirely on out-of-control highway spending at the federal level.
Alon Levy has commented that this case is even worse than I have it. He says there are a lot of roads and streets that are not included in the statistics here that are supported by local property taxes.
There is one other detail that needs to be addressed, and that is the problem of efficient or non-gas consuming cars, such as electrics. They will take up capacity in the road system like a regular car, but will not contribute to it in gas taxes. Indeed, the big shift from all those V8s to a lot of 4-bangers in the 1980s itself played all kinds of hob with the finances of road departments around the country; I have copies of the financial reports from a few of them that mention this. Even if you are not a rail supporter, you will neeed a new highway revenue model that is not dependent on fuel consumption.
I’ve commented about this before, and I think it’s worth repeating here. The American way of life, as defined by the dream of easy driving, and as what James Howard Kunstler has so colorfully described as a “Happy Motoring utopia,” is now our greatest security risk. In my opinion, we need to turn the clock back to deemphasise motor transport. This means bringing back trains and other rail transport, too, including local trolley cars and interurbans (intertown trolleys), and something we didn’t have, HSR.
Something like 65% of our oil consumption is for transportation; with gasoline at 48% of the total oil demand, and trucks adding another 6%, this means that motor fuel is 54% of total oil demand, including all the non-highway uses such as chemicals. Our highway system is our Achilles’ heel. We need to change, and have needed to for a long time.
I just hope we have enough time left.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
I think that local roads will (still) be property-tax funded. They’re going to have to get smaller in a lot of places, though; a reasonable property tax can support quite a lot of 2-lane roads, with sidewalks, and even with parking lanes (provided parking meters are used to defray the cost of the parking).
The giant boulevards used in large portions of the country are unsustainable, as are hard-paved rural roads used by 2 people a day. The expressways are doubly unsustainable, though I expect the major intercity ones will remain for “military defense” purposes (their original excuse, right?) — probably all with tolls, just like they have in most of the world.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:36 am
That’s such bullshit. Californians value rail projects as well – that’s why voters routinely approve funding sources to subsidize them, including 2/3rds of LA County (population 10 million+) in 2008. California voters might well have approved subsidizing HSR too, but weren’t given that option as Republicans insisted on the subsidy ban as a condition of approving AB 3034.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:46 am
The auto/Reason types will never understand..unless they have a car seat stuck to their ass they feel naked and cannot function,and worse they demand every penny go for their personal needs never mind other would like a balance and choice..thats real FREEDOM gas lovers
peninsula Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Robert – you of all people are the first to point to Prop 1A as the MANDATE of the people. You’re exactly right – its the mandate of the people that says HSR is only worth building if it will require zero operating subsidy from tax payers – Federal State or Local tax payers! A mandate is a mandate, afterall. Right?
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
But it remains the case that the voters of the state did not choose between subsidizing and not subsidizing HSR operations when they voted, they choose between not subsidizing operating or capital costs, and not subsidizing operating costs while subsidizing capital costs, and chose the latter.
Missiondweller Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:49 am
And don’t forget BART which dates back to the 70′s.
Rail travel is nothing new to us in Northern California.
dave Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:05 am
What a bunch of horshit!
“We agree to subsidize roads – because we value them.”
No, I “agree” to subsidize them because that’s all I’ve ever known since birth.
“Roads can take people everywhere they want to go – trains go in straight lines and are prisoners of their fixed tracks.”
Oh yeah like we can move roads once they are laid!
“The fact is ALL the roads will still be there once HSR is built, and yes, you and I (assuming you even live in California) will have to pay to keep them maintained too.”
Yeah have you realized the costs in maintaining an “X” ammount of feet by “X” ammount of miles of flat, oil based asphalt Versus two (Four) simple pieces of rail for “X” ammount of miles that requires little maintenance when light, fast moving railcars pass on top. I would prefer the maintenance of rails.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:37 am
And of course the roads only type seem to forget that Europe has high-speed trains and a whole lot of roads.. but here in the USA somehow advanced superior technology is only in concrete and asphalt.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Asphalt roads wear out faster than railways. One lane of road is wider than one track of railway. Concrete roads cost more than railways even in initial construction. Roads are impervious surfaces which add to the runoff problem, well-designed railways aren’t.
A bunch of the roads in Californias are going to be removed — don’t anyone fool yourselves. Those many-lane expressways are completely unsustainable. San Francisco’s already ripped some out….
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Magical thinking. “Roads are useful by definition! Railroads are useless by definition!”
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:23 am
A 150mph train, Bakersfield/Fresno, operating 79mph on the existing corridor between Bakersfield and the start of the segment, would generate an operating surplus. Especially as you can schedule it against the upgraded San Jaoquin, so only need one set running as a shuttle.
That would seem to put Bakersfield and Fresno as the finalists for the maintenance yard,
Elizabeth Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:42 am
What? The Authority ran the numbers. Before accounting for the maintanence costs of the tracks, they still only think it will cover 60% of operating costs. The Amtrak service is run as a very low priced affordable option.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:46 am
If you buy a 10 pass, it is only $14 to ride the train from Fresno to Bakersfield.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
I assume Bruce is considering a scenario where the price is increased to account for the 150 mph speed.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Where’s the link to the Authority’s numbers? I can’t navigate their site, and only find things there by accident or external pointer.
But the state can’t have its cake and eat it too ~ it can either be a service optimized for transport benefit or a service optimized to run at the higher operating ratio. The service that is slower than driving is the one with the cheap tickets, and the one that is faster than driving is the one with the operating revenue maximizing ticket prices.
I’m sure Morris will pipe in claiming that this is illegal according to Prop 1A, but even if it’s not technically illegal, isn’t it precisely the type of thing that the “usable section” clause of Prop 1A was trying to avoid? For the love of pete at least drag it to Bako.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
The actual legal language is what matters. Two stations have to be there, and this plan satisfies that rule. I would love it to go to Bakersfield and Merced – and the way to do that is for Congress to step up with additional funding.
Victor Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
I totally agree with You Robert, But at least at long last We’re started towards HSR rail construction, But then I’ve been waiting since the early 80′s.
datacruncher Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Based on the comments in the segment scoring docs, I get the impression that a Merced station has been shifted to the day when construction starts on the route to Sacramento. The analysis comments say “…..investment in infrastructure north of the “Wye” would not be fully utilized until the Phase 2 line to Sacramento is built. To achieve an operable HSR system as quickly and efficiently as possible, connectivity to the Bay Area and / or the Los Angeles Basin need to receive priority.”
It reads like the philosophy will be that every dollar spent going north of Fresno will be used to build the Wye and then the Pacheco Pass route. It sounds to me like Merced may need to start lobbying for a temporary Chowchilla/Merced platform near the Wye if they want service sooner. ;)
Peter Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
This is one of those philosophical things that can be changed quite easily.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
If Merced manages to make its case for the maintenance site sufficiently attractive, that will change the computations.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
The rate they are burning through the state match, prudence dictates considering the possibility of a CV/LA or CV/SF link up and running first to lay the foundation for revenue bonding for state matching funds … if its CV/LA, you’d want to get to Merced to make the San Joaquin transfer as far north as possible, if it was CV/SF, you’d want to get as far south as possible.
That would not be the same as postponing Merced to Stage 2, it’d just be about where Merced lies in the phasing of Stage 1.
Donk Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 6:10 am
Well said. I dont see how anyone can dispute this logic.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:25 am
But it can connect to Bakersfield. Not with the HSR trainset that will be used for the completed system, but with a HSR trainset operating in the Express HSR range, it can be.
Bakersfield Congressman Kevin McCarthy has joined the group trying to take back the stimulus portion of the federal money.
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x1263266804/McCarthy-backs-bill-to-slash-rail-project
“McCarthy, long an advocate of reducing the federal deficit, stopped short of stating unequivocally that he opposes high-speed rail in California. But he raised fundamental concerns about the project’s business plan, financing and, ultimately, whether it’s a good reason for the country to go further into debt. “I would say you don’t start it up unless you can prove, one, that it’s viable,” he said in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon.”
The same article says Jim Costa agrees the federal deficit needs to be cut but it should start with the presidential deficit commission report. Costa also says that HSR ridership projections may need to be revised.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
I’m shocked, shocked that all the misinformation about the business plans and ridership models is being used to attack the project as a whole. It’s almost as if that was the entire point of those criticisms all along…
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:27 am
I say we build no more Interstate, US, State, County or Township Highways until we prove that the road network is viable: given the current Highway funding model based on gas taxes that people stop paying as they start to use other power sources for transport, there is no evidence at the moment that it is viable.
In any future book on the development of high speed rail in California we would have just finished a chapter titled “Not In My Backyard”, and would have begun the next chapter–”The First Segment”. I plan to still be around when a later chapter, “The Grand Opening”, is written.
This is great news! Get started on a flat, relatively NIMBY-free section of track in the middle of the state. Grab the federal money with the fast-approaching deadline, then start looking for help from Japan or China.
Let the Bay Area NIMBYs stew for a while. I’m not a fan of “incremental” High Speed Rail, but I do think building in stages makes sense.
Does anyone have access to this link about “San Francisco to San Jose Section Update”?
After they commit to building this segment, I wonder if changes can be made in the future. Surely they would not build the connectors to the BNSF line if an additional line gets funded. But I wonder if they can pull the plug on the Hanford station later if they get enough dough to build to Bako…
YesonHSR Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Correct they are not going to build the connectors to the BNSF .. the money will be held in reserve and once the ends sections construction start the reserve funding will be applied to the other sections
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Why would they pull the plug on the Hanford station: do you have a better location for the outer suburban station between Fresno and Bakersfield? To me, the intersection of 43 and 198 looks as reasonable as any other, but I’ve never driven around in the CV.
Donk Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:58 am
Simply because that $200-$400M (??) is better spent on more tracks.
Peter Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Don’t forget that this station may never actually be constructed. I’m guessing it will be the last thing on the list, and will only be constructed if no further funds materialize or if the Authority for some reason decides that the Hanford station will be part of the regular system. I still think it should just be a stop for the San Joaquins, and have the San Joaquins then feed the stations at Fresno and Bakersfield.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
It’s the right place to put a station for the long term. I would expect construction of platforms, elevators, and station building; all can be hard to retrofit later without shutting down the trains.
I do, however, worry a lot about PB’s station “designs”. There’s probably no reason to build giant parking lots RIGHT NOW, and there’s definitely no reason for the outrageously convoluted misdesigns we’ve been seeing for some of the proposed stations in the Peninsula. If it’s on an aerial, put the station underneath the aerial with direct paths up to the platforms… we do it in Syracuse, NY, Schenectady, NY, Erie, PA, and many other places.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
And if its on the flat, put station buildings on both sides with pedestrian subways underneath to lead to platforms. No easier time to put pedestrian subways in than when you are building the station.
PB station designs would be something to fetch your state executive on, if only you had a combination of frugal but pro-HSR governor.
James Fujita Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
The Hanford Regional station location makes perfect sense. The key word is “regional.”
From the intersection, you can easily reach Lemoore to the west, and to the east is all of Tulare County, including Visalia, Tulare, and east from there through several communities to Sequoia NP.
Many HSR stations are going to be regional in nature, just as airports tend to draw from a wide net (even Los Angeles Union Station, separated from most of downtown L.A., is going to be a regional hub). The station isn’t as centrally located in Hanford as the existing Amtrak station, but Hanford is a growing city, and new growth would be directed towards the new station.
Of course, most limited and express trains would probably speed right through Hanford on their way elsewhere, so time shouldn’t be an issue.
I sure hope the construction bids come in way lower than the estimate, because this first section is about $63 million a mile! Not exactly low and suppose to be the cheapest part of the line. It better be slab track as well for that cost.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 6:17 am
This is $63/ mile before electrification, systems elements and the extra two tracks in Fresno for passing tracks that will need to be added somehow to the aerial structure. You are probably closer to $80 or $90 million.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:06 am
In Calif., $90+ million/mile is typical of largely at-grade rail construction. Even when done in an existing ROW.
What else did you expect from PB monopolistic pricing?
Arthur Dent Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:33 am
What do you normally get for that $90M/mile? For example, stations, electrification & PTC, rolling stock? What’s the typical density of # of grade seps per track mile?
The full Phase 1 project cost is in the ballpark of $83M/mile. Back of the napkin says there’s not enough money to complete the project.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
What do you mean by “systems elements”? The budgets include PTC signaling, as required for independent utility.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I think more useful numbers would separate out civil engineering, track-and-ties, signal and electric, stations, and trainsets.
Civils are *always* the expensive part. *Always*. Count the bridges, you can predict the cost within a ballpark level. Want to make it cheaper? Sever more roads at either side of the line.
As a big time High Speed Rail supporter I am deeply troubled by this sneaky act of the
authority staff. Madera to Corcoran was written on a cocktail napkin and was never ever vetted like Bakerfield to Fresno or Fresno to Merced. I first heard about this proposal last week at a San Joaquin rail meeting but when I went back to look it up the proposal the language approved by the voters of California and the crtieria for the FRA funding this site misses nearly all the criteria put forth by the bond measeure and the President.
Moreover, I beleive the authority staff who worked on this proposal was bias and did not operate in an ethical matter. They constantly send out more notices to enter from Madera North than they did from Fresno south and they never had a workshop in place to talk about this new hybrid.
Also what kind of shit is this to make this annoucment on the eve of Thanksgiving when they know most of the media is on vacation. The authority staff new this would generate heat for them since it cuts out the North Valley, generates the fewest amount of jobs and rewards areas of the state that do not even want the project. (Kevin McCarthy, Devin Nunes, the City Council and Board of Superviors for Kings County, Hanford and Madera)
Also have you seen the letter from George Soares and the farmers to the South they are going to fight this until the bitter end. This route should have been vetted and disusssed never once on this blog did I ever see anyone tout this hybrid.
This is what happen when you pick a South African to build this system you have now lost half the valley and invited lawsuits from various communties for violating the bond language. Also this route dollar for dollar is more expensive than some of the other routes alternatives. I will be curious to read the scoring and the reasoning for staff. I hope Van Ark either gets slapped down by his board or is fired this guy is sneaky and his staff unprofessional. His South Valley team specifically Carrie Bowen acted unprofessional and purposely went out of her way to destroy High Speed Rail for the folks in Madera North. In fact she was such a poor team leader the poor City Council of Chowhchilla still thinks they have to pay for all of the grade seperatrions out of their general fund. I suggest to all people that read this blog to pull up Chowchilla’s resolutions if this is Carrie Bowen best effort to educate folks read the document it is very sad.
Poor Cathleen Galgiani she wrote the bond lanugage and championed the measure for high speed rail and is the Chair for the legistlator for the authority and staff. If I were her I would fire half the authority staff starting with Carrie Bowen. I heard that Van Ark did not even have the guts to tell herthis descion and she had to hear about from people in her own community.
Finally, this decison makes President Obama a jack ass because he is essentially building tracks to nowhere and allowing stimulus money to be used for an area that undoubtly is going to have the lowest ridership of any route. Goggle earth these two routes and look at the proposed stations this is a joke. I am starting to side with the Republicans maybe this thing should be blown up!
The latest rumor I have heard is that Cardoza is going to call for a full blown Congressional investiagation and he is going to contact FRA about freezing the money coming to California until this sham is corrected. I can hardly wait for people to see this route I would love to go on Rush Limbaug and show him what people are getting for their stimulus money a track to nowhere.
How does this selection build the spine when it does not even biscet the middle of the valley.
If you live in Merced, Modesto or Sacramento you were just duped by the promise of HIgh Speed Rail. Anyone that lives in these areas is going to be missed altoghter or built sometime is 2020 or later if ever. I hope this board overturns this terrrible and illegal use of the tax voters wishes.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 12:19 am
Some other people might not entirely agree:
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/11/24/california-planners-recommend-fresno-hanford-for-first-phase-of-states-high-speed-line/
I have to say, though, it’s an awfully long gamble at best, even if I do see the reasons for it; let’s hope it works out.
Jon Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 12:58 am
This is what happen when you pick a South African to build this system
Wow. How the hell do you expect to be taken seriously with statements like that?
dave Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 2:55 am
You just destroyed the reasonable character I thought you where. Just because your preferred line didn’t get picked. Very sad that everyone wants theirs or none at all. Imagine how I feel, I’m on the Altamont route and guess what, it’s probably the last to ever get built but I stick by the plan and look at the big picture. HSR built starting anywhere, I could care less, just build the dang thing.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Yes exactly the high-speed rail section that was chosen is just the first start.. is going to continue north to Merced and west to the bay area and it’s not like Merced is going to be left off phase 1 and they’re acting like the first section is like some little limb hanging out there with nothing attached to it The BNSF connects both ends if need be. Furthermore everyone knows the problems with the Union Pacific between Merced and Fresno as if this is just a little problem. They don’t even have the route picked out .. talk about taking a chance on the ARRA funding. I think this is all sour grapes due to the fact that maintenance base looks like it’s going south to the Fresno area and thats what really Cardoza is fired up about
Donk Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:37 am
“I will be curious to read the scoring and the reasoning for staff.”
You are telling us that you wrote an 8 paragraph long post and you haven’t even read the report yet? They make a pretty clear case for why they chose this route with a numerical scoring system. I get the impression that Cordoza hasn’t read the report either. Just knee jerk reaction mixed with sour grapes.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:50 am
There’s no need to act as sore losers. Someone had to be first, and that meant someone wouldn’t be first. I see no reason whatsoever to burn down the project because Merced wasn’t picked first.
Would it have made much difference if the segment had been Fresno to Bakersfield? Would you still be showing this anger?
I won’t defend the Authority’s consultants. And I know as well as anyone that Cathleen Galgiani has been the project’s strongest supporter in the Legislature. But the right reaction here would seem to be to step up advocacy for further HSR funding so that Merced gets its station and tracks.
And the best way for that to happen is to show Californians that HSR really is happening – by starting construction on a segment. Attacking the project because you didn’t get your way on the first construction point doesn’t seem at all helpful to me.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:45 am
HSR backers need to stay united to get this entire project finished..just because one section starts first is not a slap or abuse..hell look at SanFrancsico 72% voted for HSR and its going to Fresno first nobody is screaming about that as its well know that is were the 220mph section that will truly bring HSR needs to begin,it will problly get to Merced before SF!!
Elizabeth Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:00 am
As someone said, Merced’s status as part of phase 2 extensions is now locked in. Unless the Altamont Corridor gets built before the Pacheco route, you will not build north of the Wye for decade(s).
Peter Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:04 am
“for decades”
So you don’t think the Authority will accept funding from China?
Elizabeth Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:08 am
What I am saying is that anything in Phase 2 is not going to happen for a long time for a whole host of reasons. Until even the vaguest notion of what a China deal is on the table I will not speculate about it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Isn’t the plan to extend to Sacramento by 2025?
MGimbel Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:26 am
They need the funding first.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
they’ll have it, from the operating profits of the then open SF-LA line.
jimsf Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
2025 is 4 administrations from now. who knows what will happen over a 15 year period. Look at the difference in technology and economy between 1995 ( when hardly anyone had a computer in their home) until now.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Well, the banks blew up the world economy in order to loot profits for their CEOs, with some horrifying knock-on results, and that is a big deal and a large change. Other than that none of the trends in the economy have changed significantly, except that the long-predicted peak oil finally started to happen. Yes, I’ve been following this avidly.
Tech? Solar panels got cheaper. We predicted that. Computers got more prevalent. We predicted that. Recycling got more important. We predicted that. Nothing unexpected happened in technology, at least nothing that someone who was a bit ahead of the curve in 1995 would have found unexpected.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Of course this being a political project as well as an infrastructure improvement and with Rep Cardoza and Cathleen Galgiani as chair we will definitely see Merced come in under phase 1. It actually makes sense to match it up with the section to San Jose as high-speed commuter can also use the route whether that is all Altamont or Pacheco. At this point I don’t really care anymore how it gets to San Francisco just so long as it gets here and that might just happen under Gov. Brown and his possible new board appointees.
dave Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:17 am
You could also say that building Merced like a spur in phase 1 is a gamble on limited funds, it doesn’t acheive SF-LA. It is extra in my mind and is an unecessary cost at this point in time. It would only look good if we already had REAL HSR commitments from Congress. Then it’s like whatever because more funding is on the way. Also if Merced is built in Phase 1, the public would only hear how HSR phase 1 went overbudget being built without knowing the circumstances of unecessary stubbs/spurs.
Castle Expert Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Robert Sore Loser,
I have no problem if Cochrcoan to Madera had been talked about from the beginning. I was in Madera for all of their outreach programs and never once was this route suggested. That is why this morning the Madera Mayor came out and blasted this site. You do not say this is an open process and then pick a site that is not vetted. Also for those of you to say Merced is next, look at the map we are not coming on line until San Jose to Los Angeles is complete and then they start Sacramento. We are talking many years if ever.
Merced has repeatedly demonstrated their commitment to the project and then to get all or nothing that is why people are upset. Their would be no project without Cathleen G so all of you supporters remember that.
Sore loser, the Merced area is completely knocked out of the projecct. Robert you show me any other way we come on line next. Van Ark could careless about our area and the only reason he
acknowledges the North Valley is because of Cathleen.
I do not blame Congressman Cardoza he and Costa stuck their necks out to get that stimulus money for HSR. From what I have heard from Mr. Cardoza he is going to contact the secretary of
transportation and see if these funds can be frozen. He has also been contacted by Devin Nunes and Kevin McCatthary to join their coaltion and stop this process all together.
The authority staff did not notify one person in the North Valley to give them the heads-up of this bizzare annoucement and they purposely picked the slowest news days so few people can react.
Robert if this is the process of building the HIgh Speed Rail that you are doomed. I would love to know how the C.A.R.D. folks feel about this annoucment and if I live in the peniniulsa I would not beleive anything the authoriity staff says because clearly they already know what they are going to do and would rather just spring on you on Christmas day and tell you to do not be mad you have to be a good soilder.
The coaltion that has been built in the North Valley since 2002 has been destroyed. The strong Ag coaltion that had been educated by the North Valley is going to see what happened to the North Valley and are going do say this is what the authority did to the friends of the HSR system. They will not beleive anything out of the authorities mouth.
Interestingly, the team leader for the authority is Carrie Bowen, oh she is from Fresno I forgot and use to work for Costa. How interesting the whole route runs through Costa’s district how convient. The whole process stinks. This same lady Carrie Bowen wanted to release letters of right to acess property a week before December 2nd but has never mailed out any notices to the property owners along the Cochoran Madera route. (This sounds legal)
I challange you Robert to show how Merced to Fresno can come online next the way this report
is written. No one in the North valley would have a problem waiting if they were in on the next phase. But after Jeff Bakers coference call with the area’s selected group he said yesterday morning in his conference call that any more federal money they will recieve is going to Southern California or the Bay Area. This is why everyone is furious.
Peter Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:25 am
“I have no problem if Cochrcoan to Madera had been talked about from the beginning. I was in Madera for all of their outreach programs and never once was this route suggested.”
Then you weren’t paying attention last month. I’m looking right now at Appendix C to the Selection Criteria from the November Board meeting. The Refined ARRA Track 2 Scope for Fresno – Bakersfield is precisely the segment they chose. The only change they made was to add in a station at Hanford to meet the AB 3034 usable segment requirements.
Peter Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:29 am
The solution to this isn’t to yell and scream and call for the project to be stopped. That’s childish, if I can be krass about it.
The solution is to push Washington to release more funds, so that EVERYONE gets their train.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:51 am
THANK you Peter very true.. we live in a very childlike nation as the Europeans note. If you don’t get your way scream and shout and make threats, no wonder nothing ever gets done here.all high-speed rail supporters need to stay together to get this system built as I posted earlier you don’t see the politicians in San Francisco screaming and shouting and threatening to stop just because the first segment from San Jose to San Francisco was not chosen. I still think the Merced section should be built at the same time as the leg to San Jose and I certainly don’t think it will be pushed to phase 2 as some are stating.
Peter Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Agreed.
I think now is the time for the Authority to make overtures to SNCF, Siemens, Bombardier, as well as China, Japan, and Korea to get more concrete funding offers. That would moot a lot of the current opposition. Well, at least those opponents who say the funding isn’t enough and will never materialize.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
The way you come in line next is if the alignment in the area is settled, and you going ballistic on a blog is not going to help get the alignment in the area settled.
Lots of ways that Merced could be phased earlier in Stage 1 or phased later, but a second ballot proposition to take Merced out of Stage 1 seems highly unlikely, so the likelihood of Merced getting taken out of Stage 1 seems extremely low.
synonymouse Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 1:07 am
The current CHSRA scheme is certain to incur operating losses. Prop 1A is inherently flawed and needs to go back on the ballot. The voters should be allowed to choose the route they prefer.
Risenmessiah Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Look, the goal of the Authority here is to build as much track as possible. They decided that Merced was not on the initial LA to SF segment, so it wasn’t eligible for money. They realized they didn’t have enough money for Fresno to Bakersfield. So they started with Hanford to Fresno, and they just ran the tracks up and down until they ran out of money. They saved a fraction of the money to connect it to the San Joaquins should the system not pan out.
This is a good start. It uses mostly BNSF alignment which is owned by Buffett and staunch defender of passenger rail. It goes through Costa’s district in Fresno which is going to help continue Blue Dog Democrat support for the project.
If the state gets more money it can keep going south to Shafter and then the real fun begins.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 7:33 am
They decided that it was not necessarily capable of providing independent utility, as required for the federal funding and therefore for releasing the state funding, because the alignment is not settled and, indeed, the original preferred alignment can’t do it.
The three choices with the funds available were not-quite Fresno to not-quite-Bakersfield, through Fresno to where the alignment uncertainty starts in the north and then as far south as possible, and building the Wye and up toward Merced, smack dab in the middle of the uncertainty. The first one is hemmed in and harder to use increments of additional funding, the third is knocked out by the need to show independent utility on a section so short that the independent utility has to be an existing Amtrak-California services.
brandon from San Diego Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
The segmentation of the HSR segments was for environmental review purposes. That’s all. Construction can occur on any segments that have been cleared environmentally.
That said, then permissible construction can occur in places that meet or satisfy the funding requirements and those strings that are attached.
Jeez, some people can certainly get their panties in a twist!
Why worry about ridership numbers on this segment? van Ark has repeatedly said there will be no HSR trains running on it, since by itself it cannot support HSR. There apparently is no electrification until later, although PTC is included. (needed for slow traffic also, I presume to make it have independent utility).
Although alternatives, with only 1 station were not ruled out on that basis alone, the Nov 4th, board meeting made quite clear that board members were very concerned about meeting that requirement of Prop 1A, although van Ark seemed to always talk around it.
So Authority staff put together a new segment, added Hanford as a station, and has a segment with 2 stations, one of which was previously considered to not be necessary. Magically they consider to be the best alternative.
Looking back, Morshed wanted to start in the central valley; the board said no and rumors persist Morshed was fired because of his position. Tony Daniels is no longer with the project either.
Are both Pringle and Katz going to be missing at the Dec 2sd meeting also?
Elizabeth Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Katz will definitelybe missing, he has resigned effective end of this month. Pringle is now in the hot seat, alone, his ramblings that this is a Democratic plot to get him notwithstanding.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Ramblings indeed, since Kopp isn’t a Democrat. (Lowenthal is, of course, but he’s also not a project supporter.)
Elizabeth Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:45 am
And the fact that any “plot” meant to ensnare Richard Katz is surely not a democratic one.
peninsula Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:48 am
ab3034 is pretty clear on the requirement for a ridership and revenue forecast for this usable segment
(E) The projected ridership and operating revenue estimate based on projected high-speed passenger train operations on the corridor or usable segment.
Item of interest:
http://mwhsr.blogspot.com/2010/11/people-in-wisconsin-ride-trains.html
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
I’ve been reading postings and letters by people saying “When we voted for Scott Walker, we didn’t *really* believe he would cancel the train! We thought he was just lying to chase up rural votes!”
Let this be a lesson for everyone. When Republicans these days make crazy statements in public, *they mean them*.
Unless this Madero-Corcoran proposal includes electrification (including the identified funding for electrification as part of this proposal), then it fails AB3034 requirements:
(A) construction of the corridor or usable segment thereof can be completed as proposed in
the plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (1), (B) if so completed, the corridor or usable segment thereof would be suitable and ready for high-speed train operation,
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:03 am
and “we’ve marked the places where the catenary supports will be built when the system is more complete” means it’s ready for high speed trains….
Peter Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:15 am
The question of whether it’s “ready for high-speed train operation” will most likely be one that will be decided in the Legislature when they decide whether to release the bond funding. And then someone will come up with the bright idea of suing to enjoin the release of the bond funding.
peninsula Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Andir – Fail. Losing your logic we can ‘mark’ where the tracks will go, call it all ‘ready’, and save everyone a ton of money.
Peter, you don’t need to put “high speed train operation” in quotes – that’s defined as well in the bond measure. They also kindly define High Speed Train, which by the way rules out the use of amtrak capable of 110mph as their ‘high speed train’
(d) “High-speed train” means a passenger train capable of sustained revenue operating speeds of at least 200 miles per hour where conditions permit those speeds.
(e) “High-speed train system” means a system with high-speed trains and includes, but is not limited to, the following components: right-of-way, track, power system, rolling stock, stations, and associated facilities.
Peter Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I was looking at that, too. I see “high-speed train” and “high-speed train system” defined, but not “high speed train operation”. I know what YOUR definition is of “high speed train operation”, but that doesn’t have to be what the peer review and Legislature will define it as.
People in legislative bodies and the courts have been known to apply their common sense to these types of things, you know.
Nathanael Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
There exist 200 mph diesel trains. They’re not efficient and the authority doesn’t plan to use them, but their existence means that electrification is not necessary for the segment to satisfy the legal segment requirements. Sigh.
dave Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:23 am
They can run Amtrak trains at 110 mph (The U.S’s standard definition of HSR) and presto, you have un-electified HSR.
James Fujita Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Don’t sell electrification short.
Electric commuter trains would be a lot less polluting than anything Metrolink, Caltrain, Altamont, Coaster currently operates, and air pollution is a bigger concern than traffic congestion in the Central Valley. Borrow some “toasters” from the NEC ;)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
The NEC doesn’t have anything to lend. I hear NJTransit might have some worn out ALP44s for sale soon.
James Fujita Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Just a suggestion :) We’re making this huge investment, might as well electrify it while we’re at it.
Maybe one of the international companies fighting for HSR can lend us a commuter train or two :)
This is another reason why CAHSR will benefit California. I moved here two years ago and I have never heard of both cities. You think they will get attention when HSR runs through their cities? You betcha.
I also realize that we should stop wasting our time asking for grants from DC. Japan, China and Europe are our future investors.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:39 am
“Japan, China and Europe are our future investors.”–Emma
There’s plenty of precedent for that. English and other European backers financed a lot of American railroad mileage in the 19th century, and a number of other businesses here as well.
BruceMcF Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Hard to call it wasting your time, you’ve got much more than a per capita slice of the funds that have been put out for application, and enough to break ground.
It’s off topic as far as subject matter, but right in time with the beginning of the holiday season. . .and these novelty holiday tunes are so delightful, I have to share them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgwsm6zLP2c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJAC9ZykSAo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkwgu8JLaF4
My wife stumbled onto these while looking for other Christmas music. They are humorous novelty tunes, but doggone it, I consider them the most realistic holiday songs around!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Looking at the arguments and charges back and forth between Peninsula and the rest of us convinces me that first tune is what Christmas is really going to be like here.
Happy Holidays anyway. . .even to Peninsula and his family. . .