More Details on California’s New HSR Money
We’re learning more today about just how the $642 million California received in HSR stimulus funds redirected from Wisconsin and Ohio are to be used. Tim Sheehan at the Fresno Bee explains more:
Along with an equal sum in state matching money, the reallocation will allow the state to extend the southern end of the system’s first segment perhaps as far as Bakersfield. It also provides money to design stations in Merced and Bakersfield. And that could soothe some hurt feelings in the North and South Valley after the state decided to start building near Fresno….
Assembly Member Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston, said rail officials told her the reallocation includes money to plan and design high-speed-train stations in Merced and Bakersfield.
My sources indicate that the new federal funding includes money specifically earmarked for station area acquisition in Bakersfield – not just design. Other stations in the system, including some not in the Central Valley, will get some of this money as well for design and acquisition work. Just under $600 million will be left over to build tracks toward Bakersfield. Look for more details about all that on Monday.
What this shows is that California cities that want HSR need to adopt a very different attitude toward it than they are used to taking with other big projects. For much of the 20th century, the attitude was that someone else would fund the project, and localities just had to organize to convince project managers to send it their way.
However, that is changing. If cities in California want HSR, they have to not only advocate for the route as well as an advantageous position on the construction timeline – they have to help find money to build it. Merced wants a station and tracks? Help find the funding. San José wants a tunnel? Help find the funding. Bakersfield wants an alignment that doesn’t encroach on Bakersfield High School? Help find the funding.
The days of localities demanding project changes and expecting someone else to foot the bill are over. Simple as that. I’m wide open to a lot of the things localities are proposing – hell, I’ve never once ruled out a tunnel for Palo Alto and Menlo Park – but they need to come up with funding mechanisms and help bring home the bacon.
Perhaps Merced, Bakersfield, San José and the Peninsula Cities Consortium should send a joint delegation to Beijing and Tokyo to make their case for HSR funding. They should absolutely be sending delegations to Congress, and the Central Valley cities in particular should let their Republican representatives – particularly Jeff Denham, Devin Nunes, and Kevin McCarthy – know that their districts’ cities expect them to fight hard to bring back more HSR funding, and take no part in efforts to defund HSR.
No matter how they do it, it’s clear that HSR goes to those who are the most adamant at getting it funded. Ask and ye shall receive. Sit back, wait, and expect someone else to hand you the funding, and you’ll be waiting a long, long time for bullet trains to come your way.
Robert, can you provide any confirmation that this is being earmarked specifically for continuing on to Bakersfield? I’ve seen more than one thing indicating this, including an article in the Bakersfield Californian that quotes an unnamed USDOT spokeswoman, and seems to be confirmed by Rachel Wall with the CHSRA. This would certainly be great news for Bakersfield, and I think help toward gaining public support for the project by connecting Fresno to Bakersfield
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 11:37 am
It is confirmed. About $50 million or so of the $624 total is earmarked for station-area work at a few locations, including Merced and Bakersfield, with others to be announced on Monday. Caltrans gets $8 million for non-HSR intercity rail, and the balance goes to building tracks to Bakersfield.
Bret Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 11:49 am
that’s great to hear Robert. Do you have a source, I’d like to be able to pass it along.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Me.
Seriously. My sources haven’t wanted to be identified publicly, but there are many of them. The Fresno Bee article I linked does mention building toward Bakersfield though.
Bret Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I don’t doubt that you’re a reliable source Robert. There’s an article on bakersfield.com saying the same thing, we here in Kern County just wanted to see some sort of concrete evidence so that if/when the Merced faction questions it, there’s some sort of back up. Either way, I appreciate you passing along the info Robert.
synonymouse Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 11:47 am
The CHSRA, as a public infrastructure project, gives every indication of degenerating into the mother of Big Digs, way overpriced and then requiring large perennial operating subsidies. The only way this could be approached with any hope of relative success if it were build and operated by a private company. An outfit with internal resources like the UP knows how to keep capital costs realistic. Of course this will never happen as corrupt fixes like the Palmdale diversion would be instantly thrown out.
The funding issue will be shortly brought to a head by Jerry Brown’s tax levy. Your homie, Jim Wunderman, let the cat out of the bag in an op-ed in today’s Chron, which, in my reading, calls for big business to support the machine. Expect a massive brainwashing campaign to impose taxes on the middle class.
I see a political-cultural war forthcoming pitting the middle class against the limousine liberal elite, the entitled, militant unions, and certain connected companies that are friends of the regime. If the middle class loses they will leave or hunker down and go cash economy or hone their cheating skills on taxes they way the rich routinely and “legally” do, since they write the tax laws.
joe Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Apparently America is the only civilization that can’t build public infrastructure.
You could also rant against public highways and airports which are also paid for and maintained by public funds but somehow HSR is different.
At least you have Jerry Brown to kick around.
synonymouse Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
The difference come down to details like this: autos are diy – no union scale chauffeurs; airlines are privately owned and operated and consequently are better able to keep costs under control; most highway projects are relatively simple and generate healthy bidding competition from local contractors.
Peter Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
“airlines are privately owned and operated and consequently are better able to keep costs under control”
The fact that airlines are privately owned and operated has NOTHING to do with keeping costs under control.
And in case you haven’t noticed, the airlines aren’t doing too well these days. They have only been keeping fares so low these last few years because they have to compete with Southwest. Once Southwest’s fuel hedge stops sustaining their low costs, they will have to begin raising fares. Once they do, so will everyone else. All those other airlines have been keeping their airfares “low” by instead nickel-and-diming their passengers with fees.
After 9/11, they cut their employees’ salaries, they cut their pensions, they cut inflight services. Once they couldn’t keep costs down with those measures any longer, they began adding fees.
They are not able to keep costs down, and the fares will begin rising soon. Get used to it.
thatbruce Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
“How do you make a small fortune in the airline business?”
“Start with a large fortune.”
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Yes private industries do a truly fabulous job when it comes to managing money. Check out the list.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
What’s most interesting in that list is Penn Central-Conrail (of course), which started to turn a profit, and was promptly sold. I thought then, and think even more strongly now, that the government was in too much of a hurry to sell this railroad; they should have kept it a while longer to make their money back.
Anymore, I think we need to come up with some new financial system, or new money, or some substitute for money, something to keep the Wall Street crowd out. They are concerned only with money, only with quarterly results. Heaven help us if their speculators get into the high-speed rail business.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
and if they paid the full cost of the ATC system it would cost 800 bucks to fly to SoCal from here.
J. Wong Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
And gas begins its inexorable rise: Gas Prices Highest in Two Years.
J. Wong Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I’d love to be there on the day synonymouse gives in and takes the HSR because it is cheaper and more convenient than flying or driving!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
You are assuming he has the will or desire, or his parents’ permission, to travel.
thatbruce Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
“My trip took an extra 90 minutes because I had to go via Palmdale! Palmdale I tell you!!!”
Eric Fredericks Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Better than having to deal with seismic issues at the Grapevine.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
If he does, he will likely have plenty of company (from NARP’s weekly Hotline News):
“Amtrak announced this week that it set a new Thanksgiving ridership record last month, carrying over 700,000 passengers over the holiday week (November 23 through November 29).
“In addition to carrying 704,446 people—2.7% over 2009’s number, the previous record—Amtrak carried 134,230 customers on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, setting the new single-day ridership record.
“The record ridership demonstrates Amtrak’s ability to satisfy the traveling needs of the public and highlights the need for America to invest more in passenger rail to meet the increasing demand,” said President and CEO Joseph Boardman.
“State supported trains and other short distance corridors did particularly well, up 5.1% over the same period last year. Long distance trains were up 3.9% over 2009. And the Acela Express service saw rapid growth of 12,9%, although ridership on the Northeast Corridor as a whole dropped slightly.”
Full link below:
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_684/
I find this interesting in that this is still with relatively (and sometimes absolutely) pokey conventional trains, operated by “olde tyme” railroaders running under the antiquated rules of the FRA with equipment that is generally regarded as too heavy and too expensive. If these trains do as well as they are in gaining patronage, what will a much faster train service be able to do, with a new right-of-way, electrification, an updated operating scenario, and the lighter-weight equipment so many here are anxious for?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
what will a much faster train service be able to do, with a new right-of-way, electrification, an updated operating scenario, and the lighter-weight equipment so many here are anxious for?,
Passengers don’t care about new ROW, electrification, update operating scenarios etc. ( except when you spend an afternoon explaining to them why they are pertinent ) all they care about is speed and comfort. It’s gotta be the fastest way to get from here to there to get good ridership numbers.
wu ming Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 10:09 am
all those things will make it faster and more comfortable, though.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
If Acela ridership rose and Regional ridership fell, then it’s not a good sign. It’s showing that Amtrak’s losing passengers to the express buses.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
It’s my understanding that NEC ridership has gone down over the last several years, apparently starting at the beginning of the current recession. Supposedly the economy and the loss of jobs cutting into what amounts to commuter traffic are to blame; if your comments about the buses are correct, that could be (and likely is) a factor there as well (people looking for cheaper rides).
Still, it’s interesting that the long-distance services are still going up, and these are the trains everyone says really cost too much and run too slowly. What do you think is driving that?
jimsf Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
“some” people think they are too slow or cost too much, but millions of others actually enjoy traveling that way. gasp! Of course we have to hurry up and tell them, “hey, you shouldn’t like that! what do you think you are doing, going around enjoying yourself on those big trains!!! stop that this minute!”
Victor Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Some of My Relatives have ridden on real HSR, Under the Channel through the Chunnel and on the TGV to Paris France and they thought It wasn’t half bad and for about 160mph It was pretty smooth and So those 3 ladies are with Me in supporting HSR(Sister in Law and Two Nieces), While My Nephew remains against It, But then He’s never ridden on a Train in His Life, The only Trains I’ve been on are down at Disneyland, But being their not ECV compatible I can’t do that anymore.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Or Amtrak has had some really sweet deals on Acela fares.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
I have ridden on Eurostar under the channel 4 times ..its wonderful to leave london and arrive Paris in 2hrs50mins.. starts out regular speeds out of london then really picks up on the new HSR section thou the tunnel section is not as fast..and it really zooms when in France..very smooth and quite and things just zoom by outside the window..there wiil be nothing like our HSR in the US when we open it!!
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 12:07 am
But overall NEC ridership fell – it’s not just people riding Acela instead of Regional.
Nathanael Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
The massive drop in NYC financial business has been pegged as the main cause of the drop in Regional traffic; a lot of flunkies took Regionals from quite far out to work in NYC.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Hey, Victor, sounds like you got all the ladies on board, courtesy of them getting to take a trip. (I bet you wish you could have gone, but you’ve mentioned your financial challenges.) As I recall, the ladies were not unanimous on the rail question a little while ago, but now they seem to be. Your nephew, of course, has no first-hand knowledge–wish he did, his position, either way, would be better informed.
Various comments here strongly suggest that once we get something running, it will bring people around. Your experience with your sister-in-law and nieces seems to bear this out.
Victor Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
And HSR is more expensive? Bah Humbug, Costs are lower as HSR or Rail in General is more efficient at at hauling cargo around and cargo includes people too, Or should I say hauling asses around, But then It was good enough for My Parents and Grand Parents on both sides of My family, So HSR should be good for this generation too. Freeways and Airports aren’t free, They are subsidized and they always have been, Private funds do not go into building, maintaining or expanding such massive projects, Even Hoover dam and the Bypass bridge were paid for by Government Money and only Government(Tax Payer) Money. If You believe the money is all private then dream on, Government isn’t evil, Only small minded peoples thoughts are. Sure Airlines are privately owned and operated, Of course without a Publicly funded Airport Airplanes don’t work too well, Autos also have a problem without Publicly maintained Roads/Highways/Freeways too as they aren’t in the Least FREE.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Since when are autos DIY? If autos were DIY it would not be necessary to mandate massive parking provision in zoning regulations and state and local income and sales tax subsidized construction of on-street parking, it would not be necessary to spend such a large amount of local policing budgets on auto property crime.
Autos are “DIY and expect someone else to take care of the resulting mess”.
corntrollio Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“no union scale chauffeurs”
Airlines have union scale chauffeurs, and construction of highways has union implications generally as well. Both are supported by massive government subsidies. I realize that synonymouse is a persistant nonsensical troll, but at least come up with some new stuff, dude.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
The middle class cannot survive without massive public projects that build sustainable infrastructure. It also cannot survive without a massive expansion of public services to help people get the basics they need – health care, schooling, housing, food. Jim Wunderman gets this, so it’s good to see him embrace the concept.
The opposition will be on the right – and that includes the NIMBYs. Some NIMBYs tell themselves they are liberals or even progressives. They may even hold genuinely progressive values on some issues. But if they oppose sustainable infrastructure, if they oppose greater density, and if they oppose higher taxes out of a desire to protect what they’ve got, then there is no practical difference between them and the right on the economic questions we face.
Both the right and the NIMBYs must be defeated if California is to have prosperity in the 21st century.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
It’s interesting that Jim Wunderman would write a column like that and not even mention HSR.
YESONHSR Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
AND WE ARE GOING TO!
synonymouse Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Au contraire, if the Pelosi patronage machine wins the cultural war against the middle class California is screwed in the 21st century. The limousine liberals constitute a new apparatchik aristocracy luxuriating in beltway enclaves totally isolated from the ordinary folk, just like the Reaganites. The professional pols of both the right and the left are self-serving celebrity phonies who take advantage of every perk and loophole.
The reason why infrastructure is left to deteriorate is that the rich and the corporations expect the little people to pay for it. If infrastructure were so important the whole phenomenon of outsourcing would not exist. They are not outsourcing to Sweden, which could serve as a paradigm for your public service utopia. Where infrastructure is truly important, as in very high tech manufacturing, it will be in homogeneous, uptight societies like Japan or Singapore. Hitachi suffered a momentary power outage and ruined a lot of flash memory as a result. But you aren’t going to see much of this high-end fabrication in medical marijuana California.
If Pelosi wins California won’t be a Sweden, but a piig. Bell is the model for the future, or like Napoli where the Camorra leeches off public expenditures to the point where the archaeological gem of Pompeii is falling down because the public money disappears. Consequently everybody cheats on their taxes.
Peter Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
“Pelosi patronage machine”
“cultural war against the middle class”
“limousince liberals”
“new apparatchik aristocracy luxuriating in beltway enclaves”
“self-serving celebrity phonies”
“Bell is a model for the future”
“Consequently everybody cheats on their taxes”
What the HELL are you trying to say, because it all comes over as garbage.
John Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
*TOSHIBA* suffered the flash memory power outage. I can’t fact check your other claims :p
synonymouse Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Sorry about confusing Hitachi with Toshiba. Probably because I think Hitachi is bigger in storage than Toshiba since Hitachi took over IBM’s harddrive operation. With Japan, Inc. they all consort anyway.
wu ming Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
hey look, it’s frank luntz mad libs! you forgot “welfare queens” and “clean coal,” though.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
The middle class can survive quite well without infrastructure megaprojects, thank you very much. The cost of doing nothing isn’t zero, but neither is the opportunity cost of doing something. At some cost, CAHSR is no longer worth it. You can believe that this cost is much higher than $43 billion and will almost certainly exceed the actual construction cost including overruns, without believing that cost is no object and California must have this project.
Nathanael Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Absolutely. I peg the “too expensive” cost at about $35,000 biillion ($35 trillion) for national HSR.
This is based on the fact that the US is spending $700 billion a year on a military which ranges from useless to counterproductive. We can certainly spend 50 years worth of that to get something which will be useful for over 50 years.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Okay. So no $35 trillion for the military… where does this go? Just HSR, or other mildly useful things like health, education, local transit, and water?
J. Wong Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
You use the trope that any Govt’ service cannot be profitable and will require operating subsidies, but you offer no support for that claim. You can say it, but you can’t prove it.
thatbruce Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
An outfit with internal resources like the UP knows how to keep capital costs realistic. Of course this will never happen as corrupt fixes like the Palmdale diversion would be instantly thrown out.
Yes, they do. And that would be why the UP or BNSF hasn’t bothered to build directly between their existing lines in the Central Valley and LA, and instead keep using their Palmdale diversion, even though its single track in places and an occasional bottleneck.
J. Wong Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Snap!
synonymouse Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
That’s because Bechtel will still have to contend with too steep for conventional freight gradients on its pathetic Loop upgrade. With zero versatility what a wimpout. All that deviation and still 4% grades. PB should be ashamed. And I wonder how much of the traffic over the Tehachapi line is headed east. Can it even accommodate Amtrak long haul?
I’m relatively new to the HSR for CA and I’m a HUGE supporter. (Great blog as well) I really hope this work out. A question I have is when do we think is actually realistic that the train from Anaheim to SF will be completed with trains moving with passengers? It seems like there are so many obstacles. I see China building the train from Shanghai to Beijing in just two more years and just feel someone is going to pull the plug, even if some track is put down in the meantime. Thoughts?
Jon Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
2020 is a realistic estimate, I think. It’s possible there might be limited service a year or two before that, but it will certainly be 2020 before the whole of SF-Anaheim is completed.
J. Wong Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
I’m hoping they’ll start service between San Jose and the Central Valley before 2020, but yes, full SF to Anaheim won’t be until 2020 if not later.
Dizzle Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Thanks. My fear is that they will open a service from San Jose to the Central Valley as stated above, but it won’t do well, since most people will want to go from a major destination to another major one and just choose to fly instead. This will cause panic and the rest of the project will not finish. Reminds me of something on a much MUCH smaller scale, the monorail in Vegas. It’s doing horrible and they won’t do the logical extension of the monorail to the Airport.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Air service in and out of the valley sucks. Too expensive, too much hassle to deal with security, not worth the effort.
HSR would be much more attractive to Central Valley travellers. Take the train to the Fanime convention.
synonymouse Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Light rail was not amply futuristic or bizarro for Sin City. The stupid aimless quest for novelty exacts its toll – see BART broad gauge, A-B cars, unique operating voltage, etc., etc. etc.
Nathanael Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Something the blog can agree with you on.
J. Wong Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Why would it cause panic? Of course, the ridership won’t initially compare to the full system if just the Central Valley to San Jose starts operation, but if it meets the targets (which we haven’t seen yet), then it will be proof that the full system should also meet its ridership targets. And everyone will suddenly be in a hurry to complete the full system.
People will want HSR in their towns when they see it working, and I betcha, even some of the NIMBY’s on the Peninsula will realize how misguided they were and start clamoring for HSR.
elfling Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Believe it or not, people already are filling the San Joaquin Amtrak trains, and quite a lot of people commute from Fresno to the Bay Area that way. I met a security guard who lives in Fresno and works in San Francisco.
The plural of sharply worded opinions is not facts.
Wow, are we talking political conspiracy theories here (alas, all too common it seems like lately on this blog) or trains?
Was reply to synonymouse.
Does anybody have an opinion on what this means for the Hanford station? Will it stay or go if tracks make it all the way to Bakersfield during intial construction?
Peter Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I think the only way a station will be built there is if (a) they decide to build an HSR station there anyway, or (b) if the system runs out of money and is not completed, so that Amtrak San Joaquin can continue to serve Hanford but also use the new tracks.
Bret Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
I’ve heard arguments that they chose to build the Hanford station to either a) meet the 2 station requirement, or b) as a way to appease Hanford since to minimize complaints with tracks coming through their town. Just wondering since the Hanford station has never been a confirmed station until this announcement was made. Even when the HSRA proposed this re-scoped Fresno to Bakersfield section (Borden to Corcoran) back in October, it made no mention of a station in Hanford.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
I certainly hope that they will keep the Hanford station in their plans. Add up Hanford, Visalia, Tulare and Lemoore and you would have the population to support one; a population which wouldn’t be adequately served by either Fresno or Bakersfield.
And putting a station in Hanford is definitely not a new idea.
They could include a bare-minimum station, leave room for an infill station to be added later or even go so far as to design a full station, but they shouldn’t leave the area hanging, especially immediately after announcing that there would be a station in Hanford.
Bret Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
you’re right, the population can probably sustain it, although the population of Hanford/Visalia/Tulare is closer to the Fresno or Bakersfield stations than some of the cities in Kern County are to the Bakersfield station. And I know that a Hanford station isn’t a new idea, it’s just always been a “potential station”, and not until the decision last week did it become a permanent station.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
There is absolutely no commitment to build a Hanford station. Everything that has been discussed is subject to the outcome of the environmental review process, which is ongoing. There is a reasonable chance that they will decide the sprawl induction impact of a Hanford greenfields station cannot be mitigated so they will just skip it.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
You can’t stop growth by stopping a train. You might be able to mitigate growth by giving that growth a focal point to focus on. Growth is happening in the Central Valley AS WE SPEAK (or type, as the case may be). Organized, HSR-oriented growth would be far better than the disorganized sprawl that is happening now.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
You could say the same thing about Palo Alto/Redwood City, Sylmar or Burbank. Any of those stations would be reasonably close to San Francisco or San Jose on the one end, or Los Angeles on the other.
Bret Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
true, but I don’t believe the valley has the same level of traffic concerns as the other areas you mentioned. I’m not really for or against the Hanford station, just wondering because if it doesn’t get built, that’s additional money that goes into extending the track, or possibly building the Bakersfield station, depending on how far the additional $1.2B gets us.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
No, it doesn’t…. yet. Of course, Hwy. 99 isn’t a picnic, either.
In any case, the tracks won’t be reaching Bakersfield yet, either. First you get to thread the needle between the Pixley wetlands and Allensworth, then there’s Wasco and Shafter, the Kern River bridge and finally Bakersfield HS BS.
I’m confident that we will be able to come up with a reasonable solution, but probably not for however much additional money we will get.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 9:20 am
But even if it reaches the edge of Bakersfield, it certainly does not extend to reaching and building Bakersfield Stn.
Peter Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
The Hanford station wasn’t going to be going through town, but bypass it, with a greenfield station.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
I wouldn’t call it a greenfield. It’s as close to downtown Hanford as you can get without stirring up NIMBY opposition.
The location is highway-adjacent, with a potential east-west rail line connection.
And Hanford is still growing, so I’d expect to see development around the station. It’s following the same pattern as several Shinkansen stations, such as Shin-Osaka, which is not directly downtown.
Clem Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Or “greenfield” stations like Reims, Avignon, Aix-en-Provence, Valence, Vendome, or literally any TGV station where some trains pass through at full speed. Like synonymouse, I have a fixation… with repeatedly pointing out that 180, 200 or 220 mph stations do not exist in downtowns anywhere in Europe.
Somebody might say there’s one counter-example in Japan, but I’ll bet my favorite beer that it has a speed restriction to less than 150 mph.
The fact remains that downtown 220 mph tracks, especially on multi-mile, 60-foot concrete viaducts, are a unique California innovation. I’m sure that’ll be as popular as downtown airports, judging from the amount of TOD I’ve seen flourishing at SFO and LAX.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I’d much rather have downtown HSR than downtown airports. Huge amounts of TOD at the downtown HSR stations I’ve visited.
Slow the trains down if we have to, but what would be the harm in slowing down at stations? How many seconds are we actually adding by having the express train slow down as it passes through Hanford?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
It depends on which train, and on what the slowdown is. If it’s 270 km/h (i.e. standard on the Tokaido Shinkansen) then it’s measured in the tens of seconds; how many tens depends on what train it is. I don’t remember the exact details right now, but could look them up later tonight when I have my computer with me, which is where I store train performance stats.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
No problem. I’m not looking for Spock-like pronouncements of 1.59258 seconds or whatever.
As long as building a Hanford Regional HSR Station and having every 5th train stop and the other 4 slow down won’t cause major disruptions to service, I don’t see how speed is a relevant factor.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 12:20 am
Okay, it’s between 15 and 30 seconds. An N700-I would take 15 (yes, it can easily go above 330 km/h), a Velaro would take 30. Everything else is in between, except a Talgo 350 with not many coaches.
Clem Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Are you sure about that? The Velaro has a residual acceleration rate of about 1/100 G at 270 km/h, which would take the better part of 3 minutes to recover full speed of 350 km/h. Granted, not all that time is actually lost, but you also need to account for the length of the speed restriction and the braking profile. I find your numbers suspiciously low.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 12:51 am
If the 270 SR lasts 5 km, then it adds another 15 seconds, and I didn’t account for that – sorry. So it’s really 30-45, not 15-30.
Most of the time in acceleration is not lost, though. If the train accelerates uniformly from 270 to 350 in 3 minutes, then it loses 20 seconds relative to going 350 the same distance. It’s 30 seconds because the residual acceleration drops very rapidly at speeds above 300. Braking adds very little, on the order of 2-3 seconds – trains can decelerate at 0.6-0.7 m/s^2 at high speed.
Joey Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Unlike synonymouse, you actually have an argument.
Just out of interest though, do you know how fast the Eurostars pass through Ashford?
AndyDuncan Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
I’m still waiting for you to show me a city in europe that has a freight corridor going right through downtown like Fresno and Bakersfield do, but then again, I’ve never been to Notre Dame, so perhaps they don’t show up on the maps.
K.T. Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Clem,
Based on youtube and other videos taken in stations and notes in japanese railfan websites, N700 shinkansen in Sanyo Line passes stations near full speed (300 km/hr), except at Tokuyama Station, where speed is restricted to 170km/hr due to the 1600m curve radius (Also excluding stations which all trains stop).
BTW, what is the good way to interpret “greenfield” station? Those stations that are bypassed by the express trains have very low ridership, but they are still inside the city.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Did you just compare a potential Hanford HSR station with characteristics as Shin-Osaka?!? Oh my…
I agree with Clem that high-speed bypass stations and downtowns simply don’t mix. It’s the antithesis of encouraging TOD.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Actually, Shin-Osaka was simply the first station which came to mind. It may be an odd example, I’ll admit, but the basic principle is essentially the same. HSR will encourage development. Development is not necessarily a bad thing, if focused. Like putting braces on teeth to keep them growing straight, instead of crooked :)
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
p.s. Do kids still call braces railroad tracks? XD
Alon Levy Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Shin-Osaka isn’t a very good comparison. It’s not downtown but is very close to it, about 4 km away. The distance is little higher than the distance between Gare de Lyon or Gare Montparnasse and Chatelet-Les Halles.
Elizabeth Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
It isn’t a good comparison because Hanford bears no resemblence to Osaka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
In terms of development potential, it doesn’t really matter how big the cities are. It matters more that true beet field stations, both on the Shinkansen and on the TGV, have underperformed ridership expectations and not promoted much development. There’s a difference between stations that are close enough to the city to work, such Avignon TGV, and stations that aren’t, such as Haute-Picardie.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
I’m not as familiar with the south of France as I am with central Japan.
In any case, I think Hanford Regional would be close enough to be useful. It isn’t downtown, but it certainly isn’t going to be a “beet field” like the one in Mr. Bean’s Vacation. Regional is the key word.
The parking lot may need to be larger than some people’s taste, but that will be true in Fresno, too.
And unlike France, there’s no scenic chateau or protected Monet landscape nearby preventing growth.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 12th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Visalia’s metro area population is over 400,000, and it is listed as the 9th largest metro area in the state. That even surprised me – it’s roughly the size of Monterey County.
I know lots of HSR critics like to claim nobody lives in the San Joaquin Valley, but it’s just not true. No, that doesn’t make Hanford-Visalia anything like Osaka, but it does mean it’s no cowtown station either.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
…. a little less than the distance between Penn Station and the World Trade Center…. though if I was traveling on Acela from the south and I wanted to get to the World Trade Center vicinity I would would go to Penn Station, I’d use Newark….
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Like I said before, it was the first station to come to mind. Geez.
There’s also Shin-Yokohama, Shin-Fuji, Shin-Kobe, etc. All of these are stations which are separate from the main station in a city. They were placed for many reasons: geographic (creating a straighter line) or political reasons (NIMBYs? In my Japan? It’s more likely than you think) or because the existing station couldn’t handle bullet trains.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 12:10 am
Those are all in or near the urban area. If you look at actual exurban stations, like Gifu-Hashima, they’re not that busy.
James Fujita Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 3:32 am
I won’t deny that Hanford Regional won’t be a hive of activity like Los Angeles Union Station is.
However, I do think that it will prove worthy of consideration. Either Visalia will take the train down to Los Angeles, or it will be the station for visitors to Sequoia, or both.
And the location works, both for Hanford itself and for the communities surrounding it. Hanford will grow and develop — the Tokaido Shinkansen station towns have had 40 years to grow up around HSR.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
BTW, “about” 4 km = about 2.4 miles. More than enough distance to get from Hanford Regional to Hanford Amtrak. (And there’s a river between Shin-Osaka and downtown).
And Hanford Amtrak is on the west end of downtown. To get from Hanford Regional to Hanford’s city square you need about 1 1/2 miles.
Yes, I know Hanford is not Osaka. There’s no character on Azumanga Daioh named “Hanford” =)
Bret Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
“through” may have been a poor choice of words….my point was simply that the station may have been an appeasement to Hanford to get them more on board with the project.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
I will modify my remarks a little: It may be a greenfield when construction starts; it won’t be within a year of finishing. That’s not sprawl, that’s just natural growth finding a focus.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 12th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Its not only going to be a center of growth along a Hanford / Visalia axis, it offers an anchor to establish local transport. First, 198 express buses that distribute to and collect from the HSR station and end in compact loops in Hanford and Visalia, and then once gas gets too dear, a Tram-Train system that runs through Hanford and through the Goshen alignment to Visalia, possibly anchored in the west at Lemoore base.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Given the catchment, the intersection of 43 and 198 is the preferred location. So there’s no tension between the preferred station location and a station location supporting express bypass.
James Fujita Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Exactly. Besides, there’s no reason why a station has to be dead center in the middle of town in order to serve a city.
Downtown stations are preferable, but every situation is different. The situation in Hanford calls for something different than the Fresno station.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
A year ago Californians for HSR were putting in a submission on the Central Valley segments arguing that a Tulare/Kings County station should not be in Visalia, should be the last priority of the four proposed Phase 1 CV stations, and if built should be located just about at the preferred station location in the alignment voted on by the board.
So don’t think the suggestion that it was created out of whole cloth in the last couple of months to placate Hanford holds any water.
Eastern perspective on the redistribution of money to California and Florida, courtesy of the Infrastructurist; note that the piece has several internal links to local or regional articles on the subject. And I bet Robert would love that image of the billboard sponsored by the Democratic Party of Illinios thanking Walker for helping improve railroads in Illinois!
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/12/10/dot-redirects-high-speed-rail-money-from-ohio-and-wisconsin/#comments
Spokker Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Calm down, foamer!!!!
Haha.
Peter Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Actually, the billboard is from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
James Fujita Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
whoever it’s from, that billboard is awesome XD
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 6:24 am
Agreed!
“Just under $600 million will be left over to build tracks toward Bakersfield”.
That’s one hell of a weasel word thrown in there. I was about to ask how they were going to get from Corcoran to Bako (60+ miles) for $600m when the first 60 miles cost a couple billion, but I guess that’s the answer.
Still glad to see the money coming in and the line getting a little longer, but let’s not pretend this 600m is going to drag the line all the way to bako.
Peter Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
This money would come with a 50-50 matching requirement, so there are $1.2 billion available.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
And with at least 1Billion for 2011 HSR whatever we get from that should complete it..
synonymouse Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
LaHood is getting high-profile and well-deserved criticism. This is a major political problem for Democrats in states who want to use the rail funds for highways.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703440004575548494055265092.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Opinion
hsr is premature in places like Ohio. Cleveland is in reverse gear, with whole neighborhoods being flattened. Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron, Toledo – none of them have even gotten so far as restoring urban rail transit. Some states are so poor they need the money for roads just to keep a semblance of maintenance. Very bad for Barack if he seeks votes there.
Don’t think we have heard the end of this yet. Bad blood.
J. Wong Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Why, yes, the voters take their cues from the Wall Street Journal, not!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 6:21 am
I can personally testify about the “bad blood” comment. Obama took some heat during the election campaign, when he made a comment about “bitter Americans” who had nothing to cling to but “guns and religion.” Some religious people came after him pretty hard, claiming the positive benefits of their organizations in feeding the hungry and caring for the poor. However, I think he spoke the truth about part of that crowd. I do have relatives who are bitter, who think everything is falling apart, who feel they can only trust God and their guns. They hate the current president, they have (in my opinion) been duped by the corporate-Republican-conservative machine.
A coworker and I were discussing something like this just yesterday; it involved the location of our unemployment office (which is combined with a number of other state offices) in a larger former automobile parts distribution center. We thought the office (obviously) had plenty of space, but its location is at least three miles from anything like even a strip mall, and almost double that distance from the center of town. Its access road alone accounts for one mile.
I told my coworker that I had suggested the state buy an old hotel in town (built circa 1920, and very solid), but an office manager (who has since died) nixed the idea because of his concerns about “parking” (of which there is actually plenty at the hotel location, it’s just not right on site). The hotel would have also had the advantage of being right on every–every!–bus route in the town, including ones that went to neighboring towns, instead of being at the very long tail end of a route that was extended to our office, and which now requires transfers, one of the results being that it now takes an hour and a half to go from a location across the town to this office that can be driven in perhaps 15 minutes.
My coworker’s response to this was that people were afraid to change. He said they were afraid of “progress” because it meant “change,” and people had seen too many “wrong changes.”
I think he may have something.
Would one of my posts be complete without links? Below, the local bus system just mentioned.
http://pantran.com/
Schedules:
http://pantran.com/media/documents/schedule_Aug09.pdf
Route maps; my office is at the end of that spike that crosses the I-81 on the North Red route.
http://pantran.com/media/Documents/pantran_routemaps.pdf
YesonHSR Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 10:17 am
They are totally duped by the corporate Republican machine.. simply amazing there almost a simpleton. These type of Republicans are driving right by these people in nice cars to the local country club and live in big homes and these people vote for them and live in trailers and small little houses barely making ends meet and somehow the Liberal Democrats and Obama are evil??? Yes they are bitter but they need to blame themselves for voting these people in an acting like they will be a savior for them. Most people in today’s America have forgotten what America was like before the freeways in every town even rather small had a least a bus system and the downtown were people could actually walk to if they had to..
synonymouse Reply:
December 12th, 2010 at 11:07 am
If you haven’t figured it out yet, the underlying issue, the chronic problem, here for both left and right, is that the bureaucracy is out of control. Government is increasingly incapable of running operations efficiently. Costs, expenditures just continue to mushroom.
Take a look at Britain, where Labour lost its mandate due to spiraling budgets and the new regime is imposing truly draconian cuts. Shift to Sac where Jerry Brown will shortly go to war with six holdout unions at the core of his constituency, particularly the prison guards union. Or to SF, where Muni is ready to rumble with the TWU over automatic end of year raises. The political situation is very fragile and fractious with both recall movements and public employee strikes much more likely than most people realize. A very hostile environment for train schemes from nowhere to nowhere. Let me suggest that there are more pols in Sac and DC than you might imagine who would favor de-earmarking those hsr funds so that the $4 billion could be dumped into the general fund, currently approaching $30 billion in the hole.
And haven’t you noticed that PB has metamorphosed into the concrete industry? Whenever I propose that Tejon base tunnels are preferable you all lapse into an utter nervous nellie over seismic dangers. First you say is everything should be on the surface because earthquake damage is easier and quicker to repair. And then you turn around and endorse PB’s obsession with building an hsr on stilts even in the remotest middle of nowhere. Are you insisting that elevateds are less susceptible to damage from any source or cause than at grade?
Finally, no matter how obnoxious is the GOP’s advocacy of the uber-rich and the multimationals, they aren’t stupid. It won’t take long before they realize how the hsr phenomenon is likely to play out financially. They will lose money and private interests will not be interested in buying them when the states come up with hopelessly empty pockets and move to privatize. Freight railroads can’t utilize the proprietary infrastructure – tunnels too small, gradients too steep, electrified, yada, yada. They will have to be federalized ala NEC-Acela. Aka Amtrak. Anathema to the tea party. And the mainstream GOP already has issues with Amtrak.
So you would be best advised to make this thing compatible with existing Amtrak tech and prepare various cost-cutting alternatives and less ambitious fallback scenarios.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 12th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Syn, I won’t say you are wrong (much of what you say applies to California, but it doesn’t seem to apply here in West Virginia), but I see a different real source of the trouble, or perhaps a second one in addition to what you see.
This source has been described as “corporate feudalism.” We have some very large businesses in the world today, the internal economies of some dwarfing those of a number of whole nations. These firms are driven to pursue money and nothing but money. They are huge, they are hungry (or competitive), and they are quite ruthless. Some would argue they are amoral. They have used all manner of techniques to influence politicians in ways we as citizens can not use, including huge campaign contributions that some have considered legal bribes. Of particular interest is that some of them, notably in the oil field but also in some other cases (the former United Fruit Company, with its Central American banana plantations, comes to mind), may have had an influence in causing governments, including our own, to work to destabilize, overthrow, or otherwise cower smaller countries for profit advantages.
The most notable example of this was an American-oriented overthrow of an elected leader in Iran in the 1950s who, unfortunately for a number of reasons, was not too friendly to foriegn oil companies, and may have had Soviet leanings to boot. He was replaced with an installed shah, who in some ways was a fine person, but in others could be quite cruel; the resentment simmered for decades, and this American-engineered coup eventually blew up in the 1970s. We can all recall how that turned out, and can see how this is still a simmering problem today.
There are domestic problems, too. I’ve mentioned the National City Lines case, in which automotive and oil interests met the competition by essentially murdering it. We still have oil and automotive interests fighting rail now. Syn, you yourself mention the problems with PB. Then there are the recent Wall Street crowd’s shenanigans, and the monkey-business with Enron, too.
I am personally convinced we have two essential problems in this field. One is the sheer size and influence of these firms; they are just too damned big! The danger isn’t just in the outsized influence these firms have, it’s also a case of “too big to fail,” or to use an older metaphor, “too many eggs in one basket.” You don’t need a bank so large that if it fails, it takes 30% or more of the national economy with it. I am not certain I like the current American rail situation of the industry being essentially a handful of huge firms for this same reason. The odds of some idiot rising to the top are too high; I’ve worked as an auditor for over 30 years, and I can tell you half the people in business have no business in business. They can be good people, even skilled people, but they are not good business people. And in the case of the large entity, whether government or private, very often the top positions go not to the most qualified, but the most aggressive.
This brings up my second point, and what I think may be a fatal flaw in the corporate model. I think corporations are essentially undemocratic. Voting in a corporation is by shares; if you own 1,000 shares, you have 10 times the votes of someone who has 100 shares. Is the person with 1,000 shares a better person, or even a smarter person, than the one with 100 shares–or is he just lucky?
I can’t help but wonder if the corporate model should be changed to the cooperative model. Cooperatives have been around in quite a number of business, including some lighting companies, banks (these are called “credit unions”) grain elevator companies in the midwest, and chain stores (how many here remember the Independent Grocers’ Association, otherwise known as the I.G.A?) The principle difference between a cooperative and corporation is that in a corporation, profits and losses, and voting, is based on shares, while in a cooperative, the profits and losses are based on shares, but voting is by you, as an individual, with one vote–just like a public election.
Might things be different if people instead of what amounts to piles of money voted?
(Question–Is this too far off topic for Dork?):-)
Nathanael Reply:
December 13th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
DP nails it, but he doesn’t go far enough.
Corporations in the US have been carefully structured so that they aren’t even one-dollar, one-vote. The CEO is authorized to appoint the board, with stockholders voting yes or no — and if they vote no, the board gets appointed anyway. The CEO and board are then authorized to issue stock to themselves, as well as “poison pill” provisions which prevent anyone from taking control away from them, even a Carl Icahn. (Note that “shareholder power” rules are fought harder than ANYTHING else by these new robber barons.)
This CEO class has arranged to take total control — without even putting up any of its own capital. They arrange their contracts so that if they wreck a company they still walk away with billions. They are worse than the robber barons of the 19th century.
On top of that, they have managed to get sufficient control of the government — pretty much teh entire Republican Party, and more than enough of the Democratic Party — to eliminate most of the federal regulations against them committing fraud. So, well, they commit fraud. Fraud and debt slavery is the *business plan* of the megabanks now. They buy judges when they are in danger of getting caught (see Massey).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 12th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
A very hostile environment for train schemes from nowhere to nowhere.
The Bay Area isn’t nowhere and metro LA isn’t either. BTW, according to Wikipedia, metro LA is the world’s 13th largest metro area. There’s going to be a bit of demand to travel there. From places like Bakersfield. Lot less demand from places like Grapevine.
Whenever I propose that Tejon base tunnels are preferable you all lapse into an utter nervous nellie over seismic dangers.
Not all of us. For the bazillonth time. HSR is a passenger service, it makes sense to bring to the places where passengers are.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
And the mainstream GOP already has issues with Amtrak.
actually amtrak often does better under republican rule. There is quite a bit of gop support for amtrak. In many red states, the constituency demands it as amtrak is an important part of their transportation availability.
synonymouse Reply:
December 12th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Borden to Corcoran is nowhere to nowhere. The ridership potential of the San Joaquin Valley is being way overstated for political reasons. May I remind you there is zero, zip, nada rail passenger service over the Tehachapis. If there were any substantial traffic the state would have come up with the money years ago to bribe the UP into operating at least one train. Passenger trains require subsidies. See Amtrak.
But the biggest canard of all is aerials in the Tehachapis. You seriously consider that
seismically elevateds are preferable to at grade? I guess 1952 was a figment of the imagination. Remember the Cypress in 1989? With the detour you 30 extra route miles of double track exposed to seismic peril and you want to put it on stilts. I wonder how that all that extra hollow-core affects the cost comparison Tejon vs. Tehachapi. Rafael has a better notion with climbing Tejon at grade.
jimsf Reply:
December 12th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
are you just retarded or what. please stop it.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 9:31 am
I relish the though of you advocates of the Great Rip-Off Economy and the destruction of the Great American Middle Class using that talking point to run on in Ohio.
I’m sorry I don’t have the plan memorized, but does the HSR use the (quite attractive and fairly new) Amtrak station in Bakersfield? Or will it be somewhere different?
Peter Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
It should be built above the Amtrak station.
Joey Reply:
December 10th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
It will be in approximately the same location.
James Fujita Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 3:38 am
If it’s on top of the the existing station, it will be tantalizingly close to the Marriott and to the convention center. Both good reasons to build Cal HSR there.
jimsf Reply:
December 11th, 2010 at 8:03 am
I’m familiar with the location and it would be a good place. The convention center is adjacent. There is plenty of room to. Ive been trying to figure out which way they are going in to bfd. They seem to have narrowed it down according to the presentation on the website. But I guess they haven’t made a final choice yet. I think it will will look like this route with elevated along the bnsf from tothe river, then the signature bridge then a slight curve to the south to avoid the oil refinery then re-join the bnsf row. The only problem area I see is in greenacres for the stretch between where they leave the bnsf row to the oil refinery. There are homes there.