House Republicans Propose Eliminating HSR and Amtrak Funding
This insane proposal should come as no surprise:
The conservative Republican Study Committee has released a document identifying $2.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years, a tangible list of programs conservatives would like to eliminate. This represents the right flank in the upcoming debate over spending that will consume much of the first year of this Congress….Here are some of their other trims:
• Ending Amtrak subsidies for $1.565 billion
• Ending intercity and high speed rail grants for $2.5 billion
I guess their oil company donors made their demands known. That’s not just me being glib. Republican control of the House was enabled by massive spending by people like the Koch brothers, whose family business began as an oil company and is still very much involved in the oil business. It’s no coincidence that House Republicans are therefore proposing to shackle Americans to their cars and eliminate any meaningful alternatives to paying the unaffordable cost of rising gas prices. It matches neatly the ideological priorities of most House Republicans, who are determined to defend the 20th century model of automobile dependence at all costs – and who do not believe there is any value to subsidizing any transportation system aside from highways.
That being said, the House Republican caucus is far from unified on this issue. We know that Florida’s John Mica supports true high speed rail, although his stance on future federal funding is unclear at best. And while many right-wing Republicans have opposed Amtrak funding in the past, many other Republicans support it, especially those from rural districts where Amtrak service is a vital part of the transportation system.
There is every reason to believe that pressure on House Republicans, especially those from California, will be useful to help stop these cuts. Of course, similar pressure on Democrats – in Congress and in the White House – will be needed to help hold the line against cuts to passenger rail. At a time when gas prices continue to rise, we need to be increasing our investments in passenger rail. Reducing them is an act of madness.
One other note, about partisanship. Sometimes this blog comes under criticism for taking a “partisan” tone on the HSR issue. People from all kinds of political persuasions support high speed rail, and we welcome all of them. Here in California, Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and many Republicans in the state Legislature support HSR and helped the project get where it is today. Many local elected officials who back the project are Republicans.
It does us no good to treat HSR as a Democratic or a Republican project (it’s actually just a smart project). But we cannot escape the fact that when Congress was in Democratic hands, HSR funding was increased from $0 per year to $1 billion, then to $2.5 billion, with $8 billion in stimulus spending. The Democratic House went further, proposing $50 billion for HSR in a new Transportation Bill (and authorizing $4 billion in an annual HSR appropriation in the federal budget before the Senate forced a cut to $2.5 billion).
It wasn’t that long ago that infrastructure was something both parties agreed to, that one might have expected Republicans to support HSR as much as Democrats. I hope we can return to those days soon. But we’re not there now.
I haven’t read the proposal, but if it’s anything like previous right-wing proposals to cut the budget, it’s a gimmick consisting of a few small cuts, like cutting rail funding by 0.03% of GDP, and unrealistic or numerically fudged pretend-reforms to Social Security and Medicare that, if proposed by Democrats, they’d be calling anti-American.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 4:03 pm
The formula seems to be promise people you will cut taxes and increase spending. Then borrow money like a drunken sailor for a few years being sure to cut taxes on rich people. Then get thrown out of office, leaving the mess for someone else to clean up. Rinse repeat.
jimsf Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Its why the teaparty crowd is rightfully frustrated, but the solution was not to put republicans back in charge.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I don’t think that’s why the TPers are frustrated. Back when Bush was cutting taxes in times of war and couldn’t cut domestic spending at all, the right-wing Republicans said nothing about the deficit. The Tea Party movement formed in response to the stimulus, not the finance bailout.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 6:56 pm
The Tea Party was formed in response to the Democratic nominee not being a Republican. He’s also not batshit insane enough for him. And then there’s that whole string words together into complete sentences thing. And the stringing the complete sentences into coherent paragraphs…
jimsf Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 7:00 pm
paragraphs are scary.
Nathanael Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:27 pm
There were a few really, justifiedly frustrated people, such as jimsf describes, who got involved in the early Tea Party groups — but they’ve mostly denounced and rejected it as a Republican astroturf operation now. I had the name of a prominent blogger/talking head example, but I’ve lost it….
Here is what we should add to this list to get rid of.
-Road construction subsidies
-Bailouts of auto manufacturers
-Car buying subsidies
And add the following
-gas tax increase
-tolls on Interstate Highway system
Then we shall talk. Until then, I hope the Democrats throw the wrench into this plan.
MGimbel Reply:
January 20th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Agree 100%
Let me guess … no defense spending cuts?
YesonHSR Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 8:23 am
I think I have read they want to raise it…
The Senate Minority Leader claims, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” If Republican leaders prioritize ousting Obama over employing Americans or providing health care to Americans or protecting Americans against terrorist, why would you expect these leaders to miss an opportunity to scuttle an Obama-endorsed plan to reduce Americans’ dependence on imported oil and improve Americans’ productivity?
Andy M. Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 4:14 am
Maybe. But the HSR project was already rolling long before most of us had even heard of Obama. He may have helped the project a little, but I don’t think you can call it his project in any meaningful sense. Killing off HSR just because Obama supported it is neither really hurting Obama’s legacy nor is it achieving anything. It’s the most stupid idea I’ve heard for a long time. Not to say that being anti-Obama for the sake of it rather than on account of specific arguments isn’t stupid already.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:41 am
Its not historical accuracy that is the target here, its truthiness. If they have been running against the rail for the past year using talking points already prepared for them by Reason, Heritage and Cato, then their primary electorate voting base already knows HSR as Obama’s project.
This is the same suburban vs urban political framing as the cancellation of the WI and OH projects after running against the projects as a boondoggle to avoid the projects being taken as a success of the Democratic party.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Andy, politically you’re kind of wrong. Obama has done a lot to fund intercity rail more, and, moreover, has turned it into something of a legacy of his – in similar vein to how Eisenhower is considered to have build the Interstate network, which was actually proposed under the Roosevelt administration.
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:55 am
Giving credits to the wrong side is quite common.
The French left had opposed the TGV project, “a train for the rich”, but the opening of Paris-Lyon TGV happened during president Mitterand’s term (he was a socialist). His name is now wrongly associated with the TGV’s success.
In the same way, a deficit is never blamed on the people who caused it but on those who inherit it.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 8:18 am
But that is there reason..Obama likes it ..and it shows what a mess our Gov has become..nothing more than a sideshow for gaining power and the short term outcomes
I have nothing but pure, unadulterated disdain and contempt for the republican party and anyone who supports them. And not over this issue alone. Its the least of my concerns. But due to their slimy, sleezey, lying, smarmy, filthy, disgusting, lying, lying, bold faced lying lie through their teeth, disingenuous, hypocritical, smart ass, arrogant, did I mention filthy disgusting, attiude towards working class americans whom they delight in fucking over at every turn. I hope John Boehner chokes on on his own bile, and they can all rot in hell as far as I’m concerned. Im sick to death of their bullshit, their lies, their greed, and their transparent demagoguery. They make me sick, every time they open their lie spewing mouths.
Thats what I think about them. Ask me again and Ill say it again. And that comment doesn’t come close to expressing what I think and feel everytime I see one those sorry sons of bitches on tv shootin off their dirty filthy mouths.
From here> the rest of the language I would use would get me banned. But let me tell you. I feel no need, or moral obligation whatsoever to be cordial, kind, civil, or repsectful, when it comes to that bunch.
!@#$%^&&*()_+ is only a start.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 8:26 am
The sad thing is they have hoodwinked many of those types into voting for them
Alex M. Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 9:47 am
Calm down.
wu ming Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:38 am
but how do you really feel?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Oh really?
Eric M Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 3:29 pm
LOL
BruceMcF Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:00 pm
buyer’s remorse?
synonymouse Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Never fear, hsr foamers, if the GOP does indeed nominate Mitt Romney, a stone Wall Street shill, for Prez they will get their ass whooped. They would even fare better with Sarah Palin, who at least refreshingly and pointedly doesn’t give a damn about political correctness.
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Sarah Palin would energize the Republican base at the expense at everyone else. People either think she’s the Second Coming of Christ or a complete lunatic.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:30 pm
…well. after all He warned us that people who think they are the Second Coming are lunatics…..
James M. Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 7:58 am
I agree with jimsf and his sugarcoating about the crybaby republicans, “we didn’t win the election, so lets all pout in the corner and drag the country down with us!”.
Jim M.
fukin sorry sons of bitches they can kiss my ass.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 4:25 am
Easy, Jim, easy, I don’t have time to look up soul-soothing steam shots just now. . .:-)
Spokker Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 12:03 pm
You better calm down jim, getting angry over politics is illegal in this country now.
James Fujita Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 1:26 pm
*shrug* angry = legal. gun metaphors = legal, but distasteful. outright threats = probably ought to be taken more seriously than they have been.
so far, jim’s just at stage 1 of political anger. carry on, citizen… :)
James Fujita Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 1:27 pm
edit: at least in this post.
jimsf Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Well I shouldn’t post after a wild night of karaoke with coworkers huh. But it is this particular breed of republican that has evolved over the last couple decades… its they way they just bold faced lie right up on tv into the camera when they KNOW they are bs ing everyone and the arguments aren’t even good ones. Its just infuriating. I do apologize for the bad language though.
and yes richard I still have a problem with those issues you posted, and threaten though I might, for dramatic effect, of course I would never actually vote republican. ever.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Glad you had a good time with your coworkers at Amtrak; sounds like a fun bunch!
I have to ask, did your supervisor see that video from British Railways, the one about safe lifting, and if he did, what did he think of it?
jimsf Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 7:05 pm
yes but as he pointed out, diversity ( a part of the human resource dept) would have problem with it. Funny cuz it didn’t even occur to me but apparently there would be an issue with the dancing gal in the short outfit. I didn’t even notice it. Is that really offensive to people? hmm. anyway, we wont be using that video in block training anytime soon.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Well, some people would say we were making a sex object out of that girl. Funny thing about that, she was a vaudevillian strong woman (female bodybuilder) who could probably break us in two.
As it was, I bet he still got a guilty pleasure out of watching this leggy blonde in fishnet stockings, complete with the seam up the back stockings had then. . .
Nathanael Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:29 pm
I’ve threatened to vote Green.
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
I don’t care for them. They just don’t grab me.
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Yeah, well, it was more plausible than threatening to vote Republican. :-)
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Its easier to be liberal when you don’t live in the middle of the mess. Living in sf, much as I adore this city, can occasionally just get to be too much. One gets tired of the filrhty streets, the stinky people, the harassment. So much ugly amongst so much beauty. So the frustration can result in threatening to vote for the party says they will lock everyone up and execute them. problem solved. Of course that doesn’t work in reality and of course, once I get in the booth, I wind up voting as far left as possible, because by that time, the right has pissed me off even more than the left so I do it to spite them. I even vote for social spending except on education. Only because it gets to large a percentage of the state budget. More is fine, but not a larger percentage of the total. Nothing should be allowed to exceed one third.
wu ming Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:19 pm
the reason education exceeds one third is because prop 13 gutted local funding of school districts by freezing property taxes and requiring 2/3 votes to raise funds locally. the state makes up the difference, so it looks like a huge amount, but spending per pupil is lowest in the country, even though the aggregate numbers look big.
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:40 pm
well whatever the reason its starving the rest of the stuff we need. ow bout we spend a third of the budget on transportation, a third on K-UC, and the last third on everyting else. ( im for increasing money for seniors and disabled. But cutting everything from young able bodied people. And we need to have a move in fee. Anyone who relocates to cali has to pay a per person up front impact fee to offset the damage they are going to do.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:59 am
Voting Green: it’s like not voting, but lets you feel good about being superior to other non-voters.
jimsf Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 8:28 am
yeh. Id rather threaten to vote republican, then vote democrat, rather than threaten to vote green and then vote green and let the republicans win.
Peter Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 10:37 am
Sound logic.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 10:28 am
Voting Green in San Francisco means that the Democrat’s overwhelming majority is one vote less overwhelming. . . I’m glad I live in New York where I can vote for Democrats but not vote Democratic-almost always the same candidate is on the Working Families line or if not the Liberal party line.
In actuality burning the oil reserves up as fast as possible is probably the best approach, altho the clueless Republicans fortunately don’t see the devotion to unlimited “mobility”, as with ad nauseum population growth, is inherently self-limiting.
The GOP are useful idiots in controlling the other lunacy, ie. the boondoggles being foisted upon the country by the likes of Bechtel and their cronies. Sadly the very necessary re-examination of these projects will be short-lived, once the business elite “re-educate” the neophytes to the Beltway that the highway lobby and the hsr lobby are in actuality one and the same. All that green blarney aside, it is all about development, seizing money from the middle and lower classes to build free infrastructure for the rich and corporations, who, in effect, always pay next to nothing.
Jerry’s welfare state is already on life support; where are the hsr operating subsidies going to come from ? Loans from China?
The truth is that in many areas and in many respects the highway system is far from being pampered, but rather is falling down on maintenance. Seeing as how the affluent and the corporations are exempt, California may already have more infrastructure than it can afford, given the limited number of “touchable” taxpayers. And you want to add more to maintain and defray – are you prepared to wean BART off the taxpayer tit to divert money to the hsr? BART’s unions won’t like that. Rome’s great engineering legacy was too much for the ensuing feckless and impoverished barbarians to maintain.
They are not going to cut the military budget substantially. Get used to it. The US is rightfully worried about not being adequate prepared for a war. (Think 1941) And especially since the Reaganites are convinced that they defeated the communists by outspending them militarily.
What it comes down to is a project that can compete with airlines, which the CHSRA’s runaway mutation of BART can’t and won’t. Kill Stilt-A-Rail and let the Japanese et al. come up with something much faster and more direct and self-supporting. Go go gadgetbahn.
ant6n Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 8:07 am
“hsr operating subsidies” – California HSR will run a profit unless somebody is doing something very stupid.
synonymouse Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 10:54 am
Where is BART’s profit? Or Amtrak’s?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:06 am
Neither BART nor Amtrak are high speed rail and thus are irrelevant for the comparison.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:43 am
Neither BART nor Amtrak is expect to generate a profit ~ indeed, if they were, then the beneficiaries other than the riders would be taking a free ride on the back of the passengers.
But even Amtrak’s effectively Emerging HSR Acela service generates an operating surplus. There is no reason to think that an Express HSR corridor in one of the top three Express HSR corridors in the country is going to do any worse.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Where is the profit in the highway department? Where is the profit in an airport authority or in the air traffic control system? Where are their dividend checks and stock listings?
Clem Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Where is the business plan for new auxiliary lanes for highway 101, and do the VC types agree that everything pencils out?
schrodinger Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:39 pm
You’ve touched on a interesting question, which is how should we go about assessing the economic value of infrastructure? I suspect there are rigorous ways of doing it, but we don’t use them because math doesn’t always give politically correct answers.
Without SFO none of the big corporations like Chevron or Google would headquarter here in the Bay Area. The Bay Area economy would look more like Sacramento or Portland, OR. The tricky part is deciding how much of the extra income should be assigned to infrastructure like SFO, and how much is due to the presence of world class universities and great weather. However, qualitatively it is obvious that the economic benefit of SFO is large.
The value of 101 could be measured by looking at the economic value of suburbs like Morgan Hill which depend on 101. Without 101 Morgan Hill would have a Salinas economy and Salinas property prices.
I suspect that any honest quantitative analysis will reveal that CAHSR is a dreadful investment. Of course, most people on this blog already “know” that CAHSR is a “good” thing, for the same reason that people in the Dark Ages “knew” that the Sun went around the Earth. It is part of your belief system, and reason, logic and arithmetic will not be allowed to interfere with THAT!
Alon Levy Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:36 am
Qualitatively, everything you say is obvious is not. People whose judgment I trust on this more than yours, like Paul Krugman, credit the Bay Area’s success in technology to Hewlett-Packard and Stanford, in the 1930s. Its general success goes even further back: San Francisco was the largest city in the Western US from 1848 until about the 1920s, when it was overtaken by Los Angeles. Its early size is what made SFO a choice for an airline hub, not the other way around.
And as for 101, it simultaneously raises and depresses property values. Areas it serves conveniently become more desirable; areas that its construction displaces or splits up, or that are served by the transit lines and highways it competes with, become less desirable. Cities that choose to build huge freeway networks are not automatically better off than cities that do not. Are freeway-replete metro areas in California really better off than Vancouver, where the freeway network is small and barely enters city limits?
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:15 am
sfo doesnt have much to do with the success of the bay area economy. The bay area was an economic powerhouse, in relative terms to the times, from the very beginning. Its the water not the airport that made is so. The ports. The bay, a huge protected body of water, and the access to the ports of stockton and sacramento via the deepwater channel. It was that water access from the very start and still is. Then its geograpy and climate. Then it became education. The bay area has always somewhat resisted freeway construction even though a lot happened. The 280 was labeled a boondoggle.
The economic value of suburbs? The only thing you can accurately say about california suburbs is that they were always the clean, bucolic places where people moved for cheaper housing and to get away from the “problems” of the city. Thats all there is to that.
Joey Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:37 am
I suspect that any honest quantitative analysis will reveal that CAHSR is a dreadful investment
Says the man who provides no such analysis.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:11 pm
“Of course, most people on this blog already “know” that CAHSR is a “good” thing, for the same reason that people in the Dark Ages “knew” that the Sun went around the Earth.” … yes, believing that the most capital efficient means of providing intercity transport capacity between the Bay and the LA Basin, which also substantially increases intercity transport alternatives available in the relatively underserved San Joaquin Valley …
… must certainly be a matter of belief rather than an objective analysis.
At least, if you are operating on the basis of a “suspicion” “that any honest quantitative analysis will reveal that CAHSR is a dreadful investment“, with no substantial evidence to justify the suspicion … which is to say that the initial position is that its guilty of being a bad investment until its quality is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
That initial position is quite obviously absurd, given that if California grows at anything like the projected rate, we know that there will be efforts made to provide the required intercity transport capacity, and the question is not whether to do so, but how to do so. In that context, demanding that the most capital efficient means of doing so, which is also the most likely to generate an operating surplus, is biasing the state toward more expensive alternatives at a time when it can least afford the luxury.
Spokker Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:47 pm
“However, qualitatively it is obvious that the economic benefit of SFO is large.”
It is obvious that the economic benefit of SFO is large. The question is, can that benefit be achieved in a more efficient way? Are there any problems with running so many short-haul flights? Should SFO focus on long-haul flights instead? Should we listen to the COO of Southwest Airlines?
“ROB MARUSTER: I’m not trying to shoot ourselves in the foot. But I think flying an airplane 300 miles to Boston, as the crow would fly 150 miles, doesn’t make much sense, it seems like there might be another mode that would work a little better for us in that regard.”
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/11/10/am-high-speed-rails-could-ask-planes-and-trains-to-work-together/
As for ideology, I don’t think rail is always a good thing. I was arguing with some people over the RailRunner commuter rail service in New Mexico. Despite a great deal of effort, RailRunner has failed to succeed even by commuter rail standards. It has failed to succeed by its own paltry standards, and the governor of the state is looking at getting rid of the service. I stated that rail is not appropriate for every corridor.
Despite my infatuation with light rail, I have railed against the Foothill Gold Line Extension in Los Angeles County, the Sprinter service in North San Diego County and the light rail debacle in Phoenix.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Uggghh, I just checked Rail Runner’s ridership on wikipedia. 3,800? Are you serious? No wonder they’re looking at shutting it down.
Would it be more cost-effective for them to switch to DMUs, instead of running their FRA-dinosaur locomotives and Bombardier bi-levels?
Spokker Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 4:43 pm
And it actually has an *okay* commuter rail schedule. I mean, by commuter rail standards.
It was supposed to generate 25% of revenues via fares. It’s only doing 14%.
Average for commuter rail is around 50%, so that is really under-performing. Unless there are some cost-effective fixes, I doubt this service will last. Santa Fe-Albuquerque may not be meant for passenger rail service at this time.
Federal funding for the line would have been better spent in other areas.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:20 pm
I’m not gonna go look to see how long it is. The fares are low…..
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:29 pm
The fares for RailRunner are insanely low. And as Alon says, the schedule is not capital-utilization-efficient. And I do wonder if DMUs would work better. And connecting service in Albuquerque isnpot what it should be.
That said, that corridor is going to need to be rail, unless Albuquerque starts depopulating or Santa Fe loses jobs. It is simply, plainly, impossible to expand the roads.
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:33 pm
There wasn’t any meaningful federal funding for the RailRunner line. Well, there was some CMAQ funding, but what else are you gonna spend that on? It’s *got* to be to take cars off the road there’s really no other option….
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Though, looking at it, the ridership dropped sharply when they raised fares. Perhaps the poverty of the Albuquerque area was underestimated. :-P
Alon Levy Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Practically any change you could think of would increase cost-effectiveness. Look at the schedule and ask yourself if the capital utilization could have possibly been any worse.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:21 pm
They could have run the trains in the dead of night…..
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Why do you think Phoenix is a debacle? It seems to have been weirdly successful (and I don’t fully understand why, it actually looks terrible on paper).
Sprinter was deeply misguided in many ways, ending up with a very expensive system which provides relatively poor service on what is a questionable route in the first place. If the problems of sharing the track with FRA-compliant freight and dealing with the track falling into the neighboring riverbed hadn’t been present it would probably have made more sense, but both problems were present.
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Further thought on Phoenix. The Phoenix line is a downtown circulator.
Phoenix is so ridiculously sprawled out that a downtown circulator has to be that large.
It’s a highly effective downtown circulator and may cause downtown to densify somewhat. (Before Phoenix becomes completely uninhabitable, as it will in 100 years or less.) But I somehow think it may not have been planned as a downtown circulator — the expected usage pattern was completely different from the actual usage pattern.
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:52 pm
as a rail enthusiast, I always found Phoenix’s light rail system to be strangely appealing.
Phoenix has been, and always will be a tough nut to crack. it is very post-modern, anti-tax, suburban, sprawling and resistant to anything resembling transit-oriented downtown development. besides, it gets too hot to walk around in the summer.
so the fact that there’s a light rail line there at all is like sticking a trophy there. Veni Vidi Vici.
and it has been successful, even if just by preventing college students from getting heatstroke.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:58 am
The cost per rider is very high, at $32,000. Not as high as chaff like the LA Gold Line, but still much higher than anything a European or Canadian would find acceptable.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 10:25 am
How much of that was “let rip up the whole street because we have been deferring maintenance on everything for the past few decades”? Europeans and Canadians have responsible adults runing government, when the water mains or sewers need to be replaced they get replaced…..
Alon Levy Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 7:24 pm
I honestly don’t know.
James M. Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 8:11 am
I know AMTRAK’s profit comes from the NEC, utilizing higher speed trains (up to 150mph). Acela actually makes a profit!
Jim M.
Nathanael Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:32 pm
“In actuality burning the oil reserves up as fast as possible is probably the best approach,”
Uh, no, syn. Global warming. Nature doesn’t care about politics; in terms of slowing down global warming, the best approach is *anything* which reduces fossil fuel burning. *Anything*. Global recession is effective, nuclear war would probably be more effective. Not that I’m suggesting those — they’re very bad, obviously — but honestly, the latest climate projections indicate that the results of global nuclear war *would* be better than what we’re in for if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels fast….
synonymouse Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:29 am
The faster an end comes to the noxious automotive age the better.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/22/deadly-ca-hit-run-ends-man-beaten-mob/
BruceMcF Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Pumping oil as fast as physically feasible is a means to extend the automotive age. Any serious policy of weaning our nation off of addiction to imported oil will place the US transport system, which on its own consumes about 1/6 of the current global oil production, at the center of oil independence policy.
synonymouse Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:43 pm
You seem to implicitly agree with me that without cheap gasoline the “automobile age” will be impacted negatively. The highway lobby octopus will adapt of course, but the thrill will be gone.
Good riddance. They were cute in the early days but now they teem like roaches. And the science fiction writers describe a future world where machines rule over humans. These guys don’t get out much. Just try crossing the street sometime on foot. There is something about cars that bring the worst out in usually normal folks.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:53 pm
“You seem to implicitly agree with me that without cheap gasoline the “automobile age” will be impacted negatively.”
I think that should receive the “No shit!” Statement of the Day Award.
synonymouse Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Yeah, my wording was almost as circuitous and tortured as Bechtel’s Tehachapi Detour. What I was trying to convey is that gasoline gone does not mean autos gone but it should put a crimp on the muscle car. Or today’s version, what i see all over where I live, huge jacked-up diesel pickups. that sound like semis. I think I even remember heard a Jake brake on one of them. Burn up the reserves and that will put an end to those dinosaurs.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Yes, and obviously pumping it as fast as possible is only an effort to postpone the prices increases ~ to allow delaying taking serious steps toward oil independence ~ and will then only result in an even more painful spike as we hit the production cliff ~ and of course, with less preparation to cope with it, because avoiding preparation was the whole point in pumping the oil at rates that reduced total oil available.
Its almost as if you imagine that if we do nothing different on the oil front, the price will stay low. If we do nothing different on the oil front, we will experience multiple oil price shocks of various degrees of severity, and since we are on the bleeding edge of oil addiction among world economies, we are the ones who will bear the brunt of demand destruction.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:51 pm
if there’s no oil how are they going to drive their gasoline powered cars out to I-5 and the HSR station that is out in the middle of nowhere?
BruceMcF Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 10:18 am
Silly, they will take the multiple local trains that run along 99 and then out to the HSR corridor to transfer to the HSR at the transfer station in the middle of nowhere.
Which does beg the question of why not run a single train along 99 to go and get them where they live.
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:25 pm
As a comment on what syn was thinking, it *would* in some sense be ideal if we somehow pumped and used up the oil as fast as possible *without burning it*. Everyone, more lubricants and more plastics. :-) Even more oil spills might help. :-P
Can we repeal and replace the GO(B)P and Agent Orange/John Boehner instead?
Andre Peretti Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Gaddafi loves BP
As soon as al Megrahi was back in Libya Gaddafi gave BP exclusive rights for deep-water drillings.
I admire Joe Barton’s forgiveness as the Lockerbie bombing killed 270 passengers, mostly Americans.
Of course the GO(B)P would be against investing in passenger rail. The oil and energy industry gave the Party of No 80% of its contributions. Additionally, if we reduce our consumption of oil, this means a reduced chance of wars against various foreign petro-dictators. The defense industry is also a major corporate sponsor of the Republican party.
They are also proposing eliminating the “New Starts” transit funding program which is the program which has paid the federal share of nearly all of the new light rail and subway extensions in the past 15 years. Of course there are no cuts to road funding.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 8:34 am
All of this is just the usual political sideshow when a party comes in power.. the norm for the last 25 years. In all the years they’ve never been able to eliminate Amtrak even with Republicans in the White House and both sides of the aisle.. nor have the Democrats been able to do anything they really want with basically ownership of all three houses .. as far as high-speed rail this underscores the fact it needs to be in the transportation funding bill so we don’t have to do the yearly budget sideshow. I’d love to know if Obama and the Chinese president had some private words about high-speed rail and funding our system.
Fortunately, as long as Obama is in the White House and Democrats control the Senate, this won’t happen. This is like the House repealing Obamacare.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:07 am
Just like the Bush tax cut extensions?
BruceMcF Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Remember that every Republican House Majority in the past twenty years has wanted pork for their districts. It won’t be possible to get a funding increase through ~ which is why accepting $1b instead of the status quo $2.5b in the budget “compromise” (without the votes to pass it) or the continuing resolution was a strategic mistake. But zeroing them out is an ambit claim and the start of the bargaining position for pork for Republican House districts.
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:47 pm
The key difference there is that the tax cuts for the superrich are actually the #1 priority of a very rich lobbying group, which owns nearly all of the Republican party and can buy off a lot of Democrats. Call this group “the superrich” for short.
There is no equally powerful lobby for killing train service — even the oil lobby is less powerful than the superrich lobby.
wu ming Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:24 pm
the difference is that dems love the tax extensions, they just can’t be seen as wanting them. killing transit and rail, OTOH, does not profit them but does piss off a huge chunk of their base. apples and oranges.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Quite ~ between the Republican party and the Corporate wing of the Democratic party, there is a Corporate majority in Congress on issues that both wings of the Corporate Party agree on.
Killing Amtrak is not a policy that both wings of the Corporate Party agree on. Tax cuts for themselves is.
Spokker Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 11:33 am
In past years Republicans have tried to zero out Amtrak funding and nothing ever came of it.
James Fujita Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 3:15 pm
you don’t need to zero out funding to cripple a service.
a few cuts here, a few cuts there and you’ve eliminated whole sections of the country, increased “deferred maintenance” on equipment, and reduced the overall quality of the ride to the point where only rail fanatics and plane phobics will take the train.
Spokker Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 4:52 pm
The Amtrak nuts are saying that in years in which the president has tried to zero out funding (two times), Republicans in rural areas actually balked and Amtrak ended up with a slightly higher allocation.
jimsf Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 7:09 pm
ive heard that from coworkers over the years when I was new and bush admin was threatening shut down, they pointed out that amtrak had in fact done better at times under the other party in the end.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 8:38 pm
That is a fairly accurate assessment. Consider:
Bush had a Democrat as Transportation Secretary (Mineta)
Obama has a Republican as Transportation Secretary
While the Bush Administration did want to eliminate Amtrak subsidies, they also proposed reprogramming those funds as matching-fund grants to states, to use for new HSR construction, and improving intercity services. For CA, it would have been a huge windfall. Imagine getting billions in new ARRA rail funds each and every year.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:16 pm
“Bush had a Democrat as Transportation Secretary (Mineta)“, followed by an seemingly quite anti-rail Republican (Peters)
“Obama has a” seemingly pro-rail “Republican as Transportation Secretary“
Joey Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:17 pm
only rail fanatics and plane phobics will take the train.
To be fair, a lot of Amtrak’s long-distance services are that way already, if only because they are barely competitive with driving.
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:53 pm
you cut my statement in half, leaving a different impression than my intention.
it’s true, some trains would be losers no matter how much funding you throw at them. however, the Coast Starlight clearly did better when they adopted a land cruise model. and they would do better if UP wasn’t a passenger train-hating jerk.
of course, funding isn’t the only issue. the Kentucky Cardinal didn’t have a beach view (the banks of the Ohio River don’t count). but the Sunset Limited would be a better train as a daily (and with a Phoenix connection) than as a sometimes train.
Joey Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Even Amtrak’s daily services still cater largely to a niche market. The Coast Starlight’s ridership base is larger than just railfans, but not a lot larger.
jimsf Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 3:50 pm
oh nothing will come of it. its just one of their favorite targets. amtrak has support on both sides. Its the hsr funding Im concerned with but I think that while the reps control the house, they are still going to have to make deals to get things done and just as in the past, with the “social issues” crowd, the more radical right portions of the party will not get more than a token bone here and there. Moderation and compromise will be the end result. I just hope obama keeps hsr on the front burner and doesn’t decide to deal it away for something else.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Yes, I used the last Bush proposals as the point of departure for my diary Sunday Train: Going on the Attack for Amtrak
Slowly rising gas prices over years will be the lever that guarantees that HSR will finally come about. The first shooting war in the Middle East that stops the flow of oil from the Gulf and produces gas lines like those of us older than 55 remember from the 1970′s will have all the congress critters falling over themselves to build HSR as fast as tracks can possibly be laid. Either that or be voted out of office by a public so enraged that they will make the Tea Partiers look more like a fund raising sidewalk bake sale crowd than an angry mob.
That shooting war, or a subversive act of some kind, is going to be the Black Swan event that brings about a new perspective on all things oil related. The way things are going, I would be betting that this will be sooner rather than later.
RT
This article just came out today on the local newspaper website tbo.com – it says FL Rep John Mica does not foresee any problems with the house potentially blocking funding for HSR.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/jan/21/congressman-florida-high-speed-rail-project-should/news-breaking/
Don’t worry. I’m sure my state reps here in Iowa will find a way to reject the federal funding for rail expansion and then CA can have that money too. Short-sighted idiots.
Special to Alon:
Hello, Alon, the noise is still going on at the Infrastructurist. Dillon seems to me, well, I don’t know how to put it, but he keeps on and on about that “one cent per mile” business, as if it were a talisman or something. And then, a new insight:
“Something just came to me. Dillon sounds like my wife! She’s a wonderful creature in many ways, but she is a little short in the value perception department. She’ll go to a store, and look at something, and say “Look, a sale! It’s 50% off!” Or, “Look, buy one and get one free!” Never mind that she already has six of something, or the thing that’s half price is still something we don’t need, or that if you get two you are still out the money for the first one (which you didn’t need either, much less two), she just has to get it “because it’s a bargain!”
“What we have here is “Gee, cars only cost one cent per mile!” but those miles and cars add up, and collectively they are costing too much–$88 billion in the year I have above, and that’s just based on cash flow, it doesn’t include the deferred maintanance and other shortcomings, and it certainly doesn’t include those externalitie that I figure are on the order of $3.00 to $4.00 per gallon on top of whatever we are paying now.
“Dillon, cars, and my wife share a characteristic with our cats–all are expensive pets. . .”
Could we use this approach on some more of our critics?
D. P. Lubic
Alon Levy Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 8:24 pm
I don’t know how your wife would feel about being compared to an Internet troll.
Anyway… it’s all surmountable. Think of Synonymouse here, only even more obnoxious and hobbyhorse-driven. He’s incapable of convincing anyone, because he does not try to have conversations, and doesn’t have anywhere near the expertise that makes people tolerate snide remarks by Richard Mlynarik. When someone comes off as having the reliability of a used car salesman, you do not need to be frustrated with him. As long as he keeps having no credibility, he’s not a problem.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 9:04 pm
“I don’t know how your wife would feel about being compared to an Internet troll.”–Alon Levy
Oh, she doesn’t know that. I won’t tell her if you won’t . . . :-)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 9:05 pm
We men should always, always love women; among other things, they put up with all our bad jokes. . .
GoGregorio Reply:
January 21st, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Objection: gay.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:04 am
Well, my apollogies–I should have remembered, but I must confess to being old fashioned, but you may want to note that I do not really consider myself “conservative”–the clowns we have who claim that politically are in cahoots with very large economic units and an economic system that can be classed as “amoral,” having no morality, like a fire or an earthquake. Something like that can be very dangerous, even to the people who control it, but these guys worship it like a god, failing to see what happens when amoral people run such a show.
The classic example could be the participation of our computer firm, IBM, in its supply to the Nazis through European subsidiaries, of calculating machines that sorted data so well to target people with tiny fractions of “Jewish blood” in them. Reading about the people who ran IBM in America at the time, and of course many of the people in Germany, gives one the impression of what I would call “hollow men,” people who really did pursue profits above all else, and forgetting–if they ever learned–that we are more than just creatures who just pile up money. There is a reason one of these machines, a wonderfully intricate and gleaming electro-mechanical card sorter, is a key display at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC.
Charles Dickens addressed just this subject in “A Christmas Carol.” Recall that upon receiving Scrooge’s compliment of “You were always a good man in business,” Marley’s ghost howls out, “Mankind was my business!”
Money is important, but it isn’t everything.
Too many “conservatives,” I fear, including the powerful Koch brothers, remind me of the unreconstructed Scrooge and the formerly living Marley, and of the “hollow men” of IBM.
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:23 pm
The “hollow men” are running our major banks. Only they imagine that the pursuit of profit is “doing God’s work”. (You’ve seen the quote I’m sure.)
HSTSheldon Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:16 am
With all due respect to you, nothing wrong with DP Lubic’s comment. Fact of the matter is that without that general attitude among members of society, none of us would be here. Nothing old fashioned about it, just reality.
GoGregorio Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Oh, I knkow. I was just being a jerk because it was Friday night and it was fun and I had had a few shots of fernet.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:41 am
Thank you for tickling my brain cells, HST Sheldon; while I was specifically thinking of my wife, the gay crowd has women (and men) to love, too, including brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and ov course uncles, aunts, and “cousins by the dozens.”
And they put up with my bad jokes, too. . .
I wish it were true that House Republicans would kill this flea ridden dog of a project, but I’ve watched the Republican Party for long enough to know that their fiscal conservatism is mostly an act. This will spend money in Republican leaning areas of the Central Valley which are desperate for jobs right now. I will be very surprised if they do kill it. They’re just looking for a bribe, um , campaign contribution.
I’m not worried though, because the environmentalists have passed laws like the California Environmental Quality Act, the Wetlands Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act which were always intended to allow small groups of activists to strangle economic progress and kill projects which the silent majority favored. That’s the reason why we can no longer dream big in California. The most effective enemies of CAHSR have always been the environmentalists and NIMBYs and BANANAs and their enablers in the Sierra Club and NRDC.
Off topic, and it may not strictly apply to intercity rail, but still something to consider for those who would locate HSR in highway medians, or at least HSR stations:
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/01/22/in-charlotte-a-busy-highway-may-be-no-place-for-rapid-transit/
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Stations do not belong in expressway medians. Lines can go in expressway medians if there’s some sane way to get them in and out for the stations, but there rarely is.
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:23 pm
expressway medians may not be my first choice, but you go with what’s necessary. The Green Line wouldn’t exist without them.
thatbruce Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 11:40 am
I-105 wouldn’t exist without the Green Line either (some interesting concessions involved in building I-105).
Re DP’s point, you can locate stations in the highway median, and have them viable. The trick, if there is one, is to avoid having the stations located at the same location as the highway on/off ramps, and to have some sort of positive separation between the platforms and the highway noise.
The problem is that the US station designers don’t seem to grasp subtle nuances in how people perceive transit, and think that it is perfectly sane to encourage people to stand next to a highway at the opportune height to appreciate all of the tire noise, when all it would take to improve some stations located in the highway medians is a full-height sheet of plexiglass mounted atop the jersey barrier as it passes beside the station to cut down on the highway noise.
Some other noise on the Infrasturcturist, with a California tie-in:
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/01/21/hating-on-californias-high-speed-rail/#comments
And I think Jim SF is there, too, under the name of Ocean Railroader–at least I think it might be him.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:24 am
And I had to include this comment from what I assume is a true conservative:
S. Larson from Citibank Says:
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:40 am
Ugh! These guys are giving conservatives a bad name! (not that I don’t have a bad name of my own)
How bout yall supposed conservatives start to actually CONSERVE the petro dollars…oh, sorry, forgot, you have the right to waste as much fuel as you want because your daddy fought for that right in WWII, the big one, alongside Archie Bunker himself.
But back to that idea: how about conservatives stop championing wasteful oil consumption (that includes plastic which is also made from oil) and stop championing the TRILLIONS of dollars WASTED on the military to secure that oil as cheaply as possible (add $100 per barrel or $10 per gallon for your privilege).
Can you dig it my brothas?
How bout yall conservatives promote FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY via ENERGY EFFICIENCY via HSR since planes and cars cost more money overall to accommodate than trains, especially HIGH SPEED trains…..sorry, forgot, “public transit is for drunks, poor people and communists”.
Such idiots. Blaming everybody else for the decline of the country.
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:42 am
Not I. But I will check out the site.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Ocean Railroader has a Pennsylvania Rail Road fetish. I don’t think Jimsf even knows where the NEC is…..
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Yes i do. It’s somewhere east of Truckee.
wu ming Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:27 pm
man, you really are a californian. LOL
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:55 pm
everyone is that way to a certain degree. The New Yorker famously summed up East Coast Bias thusly.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Of all the people I’ve seen post to these blogs, the only cases where I even suspect shape-shifting, beside the obvious one, involve regular posters posting anonymously sporadically on other blogs. Certainly not Jim and Ocean Railroader, who don’t sound similar, don’t have the same focus, and as Adirondacker said don’t come from the same region.
I do like their map. Its color line version just like mine. This should be the way
Of Topic; Galgiani: High-speed rail jobs belong to California workers
Read more: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2011/01/22/1739716/galgiani-high-speed-rail-jobs.html#ixzz1Bmxp4L8G
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:17 am
awesome.
One of my supervisors lives in hanford. While she supports the concept of hsr and understands its value to the state, she and her neighbors are lamenting “the end of small town life in hanford” if hsr comes. They think it is going to, for one, devastate their favorite local country western haunt on the edge of town. I am trying to provide reassurance that one, its no different than any other row, at grade, and taking up little space. and two, it wont affect hanford growth at all unless they actually get a station. and three, they will only get a station if they really fight for one, the chsra wont force it on them. and also, and this goes for any city, growth is managed by the locals, the mayor, the council and the planning commision in all cities and towns, and is independent of hsr. Hanford growth is entirely up to local decision making no matter what. So they still retain all the power. Further, if they did get a station, they would have say in its design. It wouldnt be some trans-universal mega hub. In fact, if hanford wanted it to look like a big red barn and hay loft in the field, they could design one that way. Teh godzilla train is not going to swallow hanford and the local hang out will be unaffected.
If anyone can provide details:
At his time, what is the status of final route through Hanford? Has the eastisde highway 43 route been chosen? ( Its in the finals according to the most recent info I could find)
it looks like the tracks would run east of 43 not west. East of 43 but west of avenue 6 as shown. I am correct here?
And as for station/no station. this is ultimately dependent on what? The people of hanford have to ask for it? They get a say in design? The chsra can force one there?
Elizabeth Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Highway 43 route was chosen at the September 2010 meeting http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6075
The logic (given at the meeting) was that Hanford hated both the through town one and and the Highway 43 one but Visalia preferred the highway 43 one because it was closer to Visalia so Visalia got to be a tie breaker.
The line is actually supposed to be elevated. The most recent technical documents show a design that looks a lot like the picture of the Taiwan system included in the documents:
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Taiwan-aerial.png
Donk Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Elevated?! You’ve got to be kidding me.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:56 pm
The Hanford Bypass is only going to be partially elevated, namely over the rivers/creeks (obviously), the SJRR tracks and the freeway (Highway 198), and where it joins the BNSF tracks north and south of Hanford, with the potential for at-grade around Corcoran, which is what I presume they’re going to end up going with.
Elizabeth Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:15 pm
The plans show 3 different aerials, which each range from 2 – 3 miles long. Our understanding is that the diagonals, through the fields, will NOT be elevated but the portions parallel to the 43 will be elevated.
As far as we can tell, the reason for the aerial is the same as why they were only really looking at aerial or below grade alignments on the peninsular where the rail tracks parallel an active road. The grade separations get really complicated and expensive.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:30 pm
I assume an elevated line like that would make ag pretty happy, as it would significantly minimize the impact to their fields, though at a cost.
Joey Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:49 pm
A much cheaper solution would be to put the HSL on a berm (unretained fill) and provide frequent undercrossings for roads, farm equipment, etc. It’s not like the land under the aerial is going to be used for anything meaningful anyway.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:48 pm
…it won’t be except maybe providing shade for the cows…. very difficult to grow things except shade loving weeds under an elevated structure.
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:27 pm
and how close to 43 exaclty on the side of it, or further east of it, 100, 200 800 2000 feet?
Elizabeth Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:35 pm
tbd the latest we heard is that the FRA is requiring more space between the BNSF tracks and the HSR tracks than originally planned for so we anticipate changes. the EIR should be out in the next month or two and have more details
Joey Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Do we know how much distance yet?
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Watch: it’ll be enough of a distance to make following the UP alignment down SR-99 feasible.
Elizabeth Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:55 pm
What van Ark said at a meeting in December was that the midline of the HSR tracks closest to the freight row needs to be 100 feet away from the midline of the closest freight tracks.
This gets complicated when you throw in a grade separation. You either end up with really long bridges/ underpasses or end up separating the ROWs even more such that you don’t grade separate the freight but have enough room to get over or under the HSR tracks.
Joey Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:57 pm
That’s ridiculous. And the FRA is mandating this?
synonymouse Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Go I-5 and forget about the FRA.
wu ming Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:33 pm
forget about central valley ridership too.
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:17 pm
No, the FRA doesn’t give a damn about this. UNION PACIFIC is the one demanding the totally insane 100 foot separation. I’m not even sure they can legally enforce their demands, but van Ark seems to be acting as if they can.
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Wait, wait, wait, let me correct this. According to what Elizabeth said, this is a NEW demand from the FRA?
For God’s sake, sack everyone at the FRA now. The 100-foot separation is based in pure, unmitigated, insanity. I already knew UP was demanding it, but *none of the other Class Is* was demanding any such thing for any speed of traffic. If the FRA is now demanding this for BNSF track, the FRA needs to be killed.
political_incorrectness Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:08 am
van Ark at least knows hope for the best prepare for the worst
Alon Levy Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:50 am
Are you implying that if the FRA did not make a special 100′ demand, it should not be killed?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 10:07 am
Tell Union Pacific they can have their 100 feet. But their property taxes get assessed at 2011 rates, including what the land would be worth if developed and they own the 100 feet on each side.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Yes, claiming that buffer means they should pay some property tax on that buffer.
Indeed, they should pay some property tax on that buffer on all corridors throughout their network.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Bruce. they tried to make NY put 30 feet between the third track NY was going to pay for and the freight tracks. Something, I don’t know what, happened. One of the things I can speculate happened is that the state had a little chat with the tax assessors along the route and the tax assessors whispered “if it’s vital for your business it has taxable worth” into the ear of the railroad’s bean counters. Property taxes are due once a quarter. Once in a century rail disasters happen …. once a century. It’s cheaper to pay for the disaster. Just speculation on my part. Another thing to speculate on is if it’s vitally important to have 30 ( or 100 ) feet between the derailment prone freight why isn’t it vitally important to have that same spacing between the freight and the buildings and people on the other side of the freight tracks…. Someone is pulling numbers out of the air.
Also keep in mind that the railroads in California are paying taxes on the assessment that Prop 13 froze into place. They are going to be dragged kicking and screaming away from a property tax assessment that is forever frozen in time – corporations never die, they just keep their property tax assessments forever….
BruceMcF Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Somone is indeed pulling numbers out of thin air, and its probably the insurance company that the railroad is insuring with, when asked, “what separation would you need before you left the insurance premiums alone”.
Given that, the whisper from the property tax assessors regarding the assessment on the new property rights claim ~ especially given that its an assessment that will be done in 2011 at 2011 property values ~ seems like it could do wonders.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:39 pm
I sense a fully greenfield corridor as the solution they’re steering California to. Van Ark may prefer it himself for all I know – it’s what he’d be most familiar with from France.
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:29 pm
100 feet would not make Hanford a greenfield station. you put the station on the west side of Hwy. 43, and the station building itself plus bus/ taxi loading zones would take up that extra space.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 6:52 pm
I think you misunderstood. Fully greenfield means not following existing corridors, except maybe in and near stations. The ROW would slice through farmland, with swap agreements and slight overcompensation keeping a lid on the NIMBYism; the land acquisition costs would be trivial.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:48 pm
100 feet? so the freight train that was toddling along at 35 MPH can fully roll over? Why isn’t it 100 feet right now? Why isn’t it 100 feet for the roads, businesses and the occasional house that’s hard by the tracks?
BruceMcF Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
You’d think if it was for a freight train to have the freedom to fully roll over, a shallow reverse berm that kept it laying on the side that hit the ground would be enough.
The ROW owners that the Ohio Railroad Development Commission talked to wanted 25 feet centerline separation ~ the Ohio Hub planned for 28 foot so that passenger sidings could be put in between at 14 foot centerlines in the future if needed.
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:30 pm
a lot of that concern is pure NIMBY, nothing more.
It is unfortunate that the route doesn’t go through Visalia, because I think Visalia would push really hard in favor of a station at Hwy. 99.
However, Hanford (and the overall south valley region) is certainly big enough to deserve a station. Hanford has been sprawling westward with seemingly little concern for “small town”, at least when new shopping malls with new movie theater complexes are concerned, or new campuses of the local community college are concerned.
One would hope that the Hwy. 43 route would convince Hanford to plan for the future a little better, and throw some of that growth towards HSR, rather than towards eating Lemoore.
also, I don’t think Hanford would want a giant barn. Tulare County tried the “giant barn” for its new ag workers museum and it got tepid reviews at best from locals.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Visalia could push for a commuter connector train between Visalia and Downtown Hanford, stopping at the HSR station. The tracks are already there, just put down some platforms and purchase a few DMUs.
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:52 pm
I have often thought that Visalia — or Tulare County or a combination of Tulare and Kings — could do that.
The hardest part would be finding a route into downtown Visalia, because currently there’s no passing tracks and the tracks are in the middle of a street. Trains move VERY slowly.
It would be okay for a streetcar, but a DMU would need more.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Meh, turn Oak Street into one-way only, relocate the tracks to one side of the road, build a short station platform at the Bus Depot at the Oak and Church Street intersection, and implement a Quiet Zone policy, and you’re done. Maybe put in a park-and-ride station on the way out of Visalia, possibly where the tracks cross Demaree Rd.
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 4:52 pm
you’ve got the right idea, but you left out a couple of details.
First, the platform obviously belongs at the Visalia Transit Center, a couple of blocks east of Church. The Depot is a restaurant, converted from its previous life as a train depot to the point where it would be about as useful as a “Victoria Station” steak house.
Second, there are no crossing gates in downtown Visalia (the tracks are obviously exempt, but DMU probably wouldn’t be).
maybe it wouldn’t be that hard, but I think it deserves more than a “meh”
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Ok, changed. Didn’t see the Transit Center there, my bad.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Like this.
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Google messed up. There’s not a bus depot at Oak/ Church. Try Oak/Santa Fe. The transit center takes up the whole block, Oak/Bridge/Santa Fe/Center.
Demaree would be good, or even Akers.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Yeah, I’ve changed it, but I still think that a station a little closer to downtown would be good. However, if the connecting transit at the Transit Center is “good”, then no need for an additional downtown station.
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Oh, it’s close enough to downtown as it is. Unless you want to build a tunnel to the convention center XD
Downtown Visalia is larger than it looks.
I don’t know what was there before the transit center, but it must not have been important or they wouldn’t have put the transit center there. Every other block is occupied with either a church, an art center, the library, senior center, newspaper office or some other important building.
And the city is redeveloping “east downtown” (i.e. the area around the transit center).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:24 pm
DMUs run in the street in the US right now, what would be the problem?
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:29 pm
1) where?
2) how far?
3) with or without crossing gates?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Riverline in New Jersey. In the middle of the street.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P4RFgf0WuI
Alon Levy Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:40 pm
But it’s FRA-regulated, which requires it to blow its horn every time it goes through an unprotected grade crossing.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:58 pm
There’s live sound in the video, it seems to be clanging it’s bell, no horns. Blowing horns etc are regulations that can be changed. Or build it under FTA rules.
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Actually, Alon, Riverline isn’t FRA compliant. RiverLine has some very special exemptions from FRA rules; it’s proven hard to get those reproduced elsewhere. It runs on “total time separation” from the freight trains which run on the same tracks — freight shuts down an hour before RiverLine starts, and vice versa. Even so it’s proven hard to get the same exemptions reproduced elsewhere.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 12:52 am
The video has a horn, right at the beginning as the train crosses a road. I know the line runs on a waiver from the buff strength rules, but it’s still FRA-regulated. FTA regulation is infeasible, since the line shares tracks with freight trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 10:15 am
Hard to tell if the horn is being blown under “blow the horn at grade crossings” or being blown under “blow the horn at random Darwin Award competitors to catch their attention” Even the New York City Subway has horns on the cars for Darwin Award Competitors.
The River Line and the one in Austin are proof that the FRA, when the situation is right, can be flexible. They may not need to pull out the Geeps and Comets to run trains. … NJTransit will ahve some available soon, cheap….
Alon Levy Reply:
January 23rd, 2011 at 6:42 pm
The line in Austin is an even bigger embarrassment to rail transportation than the Rail Runner. Google “M1EK.”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:51 pm
..and there’s always this, right in California…. though it’s not a DMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9GzRXT8LOQ
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:04 pm
I kind of figured the DMU would be New Jersey.
The Visalia situation would probably be closer to Oakland, because of CPUC rules.
And the Visalia tracks are in no shape for DMU at the moment. I doubt they just tossed DMU into the the middle of Burlington, NJ without some prep work.
I’m all in favor of DMU, but I know how hard it can be to get these things done (both bureacratic and engineering details). Dot every i and so forth.
Peter Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:04 pm
“the Visalia tracks are in no shape for DMU at the moment”
Yeah, that’s why I suggested turning Oak St into a one-way street and moving the tracks onto one side, preferably with some sort of hip-to-shoulder height fencing separating the track from the road and pedestrians. And build crossing gates to enable a “Quiet Zone” so the neighbors don’t throw too much of a hissy fit.
Joey Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:00 pm
I think James also meant that the condition of the tracks is probably so poor that you can’t actually run anything but occasional freight on them.
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:52 pm
that’s pretty much what I meant. I think maybe one train goes through there a day at maximum. maybe that’s because of the condition of the track, maybe that’s because of a lack of customers but it’s likely both.
moving the tracks would hopefully include improving the tracks as well, which would create more of a Marmion Way on the Gold Line situation than the Riverline in New Jersey.
come to think of it, I’m not sure what the businesses on either side of the street would think of fencing.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Neither of you seem to understand the concept of “streetcar”. Street cars run in street
No fences, no special signals, not much more than tracks and a wire, or in the case of DMUs just tracks. Streetcars run in California right now, they have been running in California since the first cable cars clambered up the hills of San Francisco….
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:19 pm
“streetcar” is such a squishy word. The F-Market streetcar runs in the street. Muni Metro runs in the street and in a subway tunnel above BART. The Blue Line runs in a special ROW for most of the way, with crossing signals. the Gold Line has Marmion Way, with fences. Gold Line on Alameda in Little Tokyo has fences. other sections of the Gold Line doesn’t. Portland has both MAX and the streetcar.
I’m not sure I would place the North San Diego Sprinter in the same category as the F-Market.
Nathanael Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:52 pm
There is no practical reason not to have DMUs running to Visalia (yeah, the track would require renewal — what else is new?) along with the existing freight trains. But I’m not sure what the *regulatory* problems would be.
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:04 pm
they already have this
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:10 pm
the first problem is political. Tulare County passed a transportation tax measure — which is amazing for an anti-tax place which re-elected Devin Nunes. they sold it to people by playing up the road aspects and hoping nobody noticed the rail, bicycle, bus, etc. aspects of it. sad, but true.
so how do you drum up support for a DMU? well, first make sure that there actually is going to be a station in Hanford. that absolutely comes first.
as for regulatory problems: whatever the regulatory requirements are, you do. if the CPUC requires fences, you say how high.
noise is a factor, too. somehow I suspect either horns OR crossing gates. gates are quieter, especially as the train passes the main library and a large church.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 10:34 am
So run a tram-train. They have dual diesel / electric tram-trains available. Have it run on tramwire electric on the streetcar sections, and diesel in between town.
They proposed converting a diesel train in Newcastle, New South Wales the other direction ~ equipping it to run on lights and without fencing in the CBD rail corridor ~ and it turned out to be infeasible. But a tram (streetcar) equipped to run through the streetcar section onto the rail corridor is much better.
It would have to be a time slice service, of course, bulking it up to FTA heavy rail crash resistance would likely spoil the stopping ability that allows it to run unfenced.
jimsf Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Hanford would like something more like a covered wagon. That would be a hit there.
James Fujita Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Wow, Jim. Covered wagons? Really? I mean, I know we make fun of people’s politics here, but that’s more cultural than anything.
I’m no Okie, and I don’t have ag or “The Grapes of Wrath” in my personal background, but if we’re trying to convince people to support HSR, we should avoid insulting them.
jimsf Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Oh it wasn’t intended to be an insult or smart remark. I said it because I’ve been told about a big concern that the hsr line will devasted a local favorite “honky tonk” and country western dancing hang out. They are in to western down there. ( california was after all born from the westward movement and that history, architecture, and lifestyle is still alive and kicking ( literally).
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Well Im just telling you what was conveyed to me. As for it being nimbyism, perhaps, but they do have a right to design, develop, grow, and preserve their town in whatever way they prefer. Hopefully, they will work with chsra to come up with something that is a win for everyone and not take the peninsula approach. They are pretty reasonable people out there. But they also have worked hard to make hanford a desirable, attractive, wholesome, family friendly place. They have quite a bit of history there, They even have a chinatown. Its very “pleasantville.” You can’t blame them for being concerned. But really, hsr shouldn’t affect them much overall.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:51 pm
…Hanford, which just like the Peninsula towns, grew up because the railroad was there. The railroad already goes through town, it’s been going through town since there was a town, I don’t see what the problem is…
jimsf Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:32 pm
For some reason people don’t seem to understand that high speed train is still just a train. Its the same size as your friendly neighborhood garden variety train. Takes up the same amount of space. Runs on the same tracks. etc. Because its something new and foreign, it appears to people as some sort big scary new thing that is going bring a plague of locusts. Its completely irrational and people read all sorts of internal fears into it. If the train just passes through on the edge of town. It will have zero effect on the town. If the train stops there. It has the potential to create unwanted growth. But growth is entirely up to the planning commission and voters. HSR can’t bring unwanted growth without the cooperation of willing landowners/sellers and willing councils and commissions, and a willing electorate. I even suggested that what they could do if they wanted to be smart, is, lobby for a stop and once they get one, put the strictest possible restrictions on development allowed by state law, and create and untouchable green belt and difficult zoning. That way they get access to the train for their own use, but no one new can ever move in or overdevelop or change the town. Thats how Id do it.
synonymouse Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:08 pm
C’mon, why do you think Palmdale developers compromised the CHSRA to detour to their burg. They wanted a free BART to LA to sell houses out in the high desert. Bell is picayune next to Palmdale. The pandering CHSRA have done more damage and have ripped off the taxpayers more than Rizzo.
BruceMcF Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 10:37 am
And since that’s the more capital-efficient alignment to take in any event, provided full weight is given to geological risk, its a win-win.
jimsf Reply:
January 24th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
ITs not up to developers or chsra. Its up to mayors, city managers, voting citizens, and planning commissions.
James Fujita Reply:
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Hanford has development. what it lacks is organization. HSR can be that organizing force, and hopefully not in the “NIMBY organizing” sense.
Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin had a private meeting that included discussing HSR with President Obama during the US Mayors Conference in DC this week.
A couple of quick TV video reports from her arrival back at the Fresno airport last night:
“During her three day stay she met with the President one-on-one; the conversation focused on the California High Speed rail Project. The White House’s main concern is making sure the project is done effectively, efficiently and as quickly as possible.”
http://www.ksee24.com/news/video/Mayor-Ashley-114402469.html?vid=a
“Mayor Swearengin says the president acknowledged the need to get the high speed rail system built here in California.”
http://www.cbs47.tv/news/local/story/Mayor-Returns-from-Meeting-with-Obama/-lTeR5-bfEq1UadyiluSiQ.cspx