6,000 Jobs in Illinois from High Speed Rail Construction
Illinois received $1.2 billion in federal funding to improve the Chicago to St. Louis route to achieve higher speeds, up to 110 mph, on the Amtrak route between the two big Midwestern cities. Today Governor Pat Quinn and US Senator Dick Durbin announced the first segment of the project will begin construction next month:
The latest $685 million section of the construction project is scheduled to start April 5 and includes building new rail track using concrete ties between Dwight and Lincoln and between Alton and the Mississippi River. A modernized signal system will also be installed between Dwight and Alton, Quinn’s office said. Officials estimate the work would create more than 6,000 direct and indirect jobs, such as construction and manufacturing work. Illinois Department of Transportation spokesman Guy Tridgell said job numbers are typically devised using formulas based on the amount of money being spent on a project.
Trains traveling at 110 mph on the 284-mile Chicago-to-St. Louis corridor could debut between Dwight and Pontiac as early as next year, Quinn’s office said. Upgrades to the Dwight-Alton portion of the corridor are expected to be finished by 2014.
Illinois could use 6,000 jobs. You know where else could use 6,000 jobs? California’s Central Valley.
Not much else to say, really. Let’s keep this project moving forward so that construction on California high speed rail can get under way in 2012. Sure, even that will be spread out over time, but the Valley isn’t in any position to turn down jobs. Neither are its members of Congress.
The money would be much better spent in tax cuts for corporations. Im sure $1.2 billion for a private corporation would have resulted in 12,000 jobs.
(In china).
$1.2 billion divided by 6,000 jobs equals $200,000 per job.
Better than the FRA-compliant, Buy America-compliant Cities
CrawlerSprinter, but still.And before you ask, yes, there are alternatives. For example: build infrastructure when justified by infrastructure needs rather than by job needs. If you need stimulus, do what Obama did modulo tax cuts and not what he said he was doing and spend the money on unemployment benefits and on not laying off teachers.
joe Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 3:16 am
200K per job and a by-product. Improved rail service.
Aron, I grew up in Chicago proper and I think the improved rail service from Chicago to the East St. Louis area is fantastic. It’s going to help Chicago drawn more business and spur development along the line.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 11:04 am
First, who the fuck is Aron?
Second, improved service from Chicago to St. Louis would be great. Raising transit speeds back to the levels of the 1930s, with lower frequency than was available then, is makework.
joe Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
IL will produce 1 per job per 200k spent and see added economic stimulus and tax revenue.
IL residents also get long term improved rail service at 115 miles per hour. The crossing, track and bridge improvements are infrastructure improvements for existing service.
This project doesn’t defund teachers or cut unemployment benefits. Restoring train speeds to 1930′s I suppose is a slam if the 30′s reference is supposed to mean something.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Who cares that the top speed is 110 mph if the average speed is still so pitiful it couldn’t compete with the cars of 1939?
(For reference: Tel Aviv-Haifa express trains average 75 mph, with trains that top at 87. With a top speed of 110, the straight Chicago-St. Louis alignment should be capable of average speeds near 90, so that seven trainsets would provide hourly service.)
Alai Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 3:00 am
I’m assuming the money won’t be spent all in one year. If that’s 6000 jobs which last several years, then it’s not out of line.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 3:12 am
$200,000 per job at a time that jobs are needed, when that $200,000 is spent on infrastructure that is needed and worth the cost in any event is pretty good.
Eric M Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 8:07 am
I think most are forgetting, you cannot just divide $1.2 billion by 6000 and say 6000 jobs payed at $200,000. The materials to pay for the corridor upgrade cost a lot of money. and that will come out of the $1.2 billion first.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Somebody somewhere has to make the materials. They don’t volunteer to make materials…it’s their job….. To make the materials someone somewhere has to make the raw materials. To make raw materials someone somewhere has to mine the ores. Most of the cost of materials is the embodied labor. Or embodied energy. Somebody somewhere has to make the energy…..
Eric M Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:39 am
Really?!! I thought the materials just appear trackside magically. The argument was $1.2 billion divided by 6000 is $200,000 a job. That is not going to happen. Take $1.2 billion, minus materials, then divide that by 6000 and you get a more realistic amount per job paid.
Paul Dyson Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
The definition is one job/year, i.e. 6,000 jobs for one year, one job for 6,000 years, or something in between.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 7:11 am
Its more realistically express in terms of job/$m, since the infrastructure project should not go ahead unless the benefit/cost is greater than 1, and its the benefits that justify the costs, with the jobs as an additional dividend.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:12 am
In a stimulus bill, the infrastructure project should not go ahead unless the benefit/cost ratio is greater than the benefit/cost ratio of other forms of spending.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 8:38 am
With a stimulus bill as the ARRA that was underweight for political reasons, a maximum $250b/yr stimulus bill for a $14T economy over $1T from full employment output, there’s no reason to not proceed with an infrastructure project with reasonable benefit/cost ratio in its own right that it is possible to funded.
After all, when that many resources of the economy are idle, the actual opportunity cost of the project is substantially less than the price tag.
And guess what, this is on a Union Pacific ROW.
ant6n Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 6:07 am
So in the end, they’re gonna own the 1.2$B in free improvements?
Tony D. Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 9:44 am
A UPRR ROW? Now that is interesting!
Alon Levy Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 11:04 am
It really isn’t – UP doesn’t object to FRA-compliant tanks, only to modern trains.
Tony D. Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Alon,
That’s it? I thought UP’s objections/complaints went further than just “tanks” vs. modern trains? If that’s there only true objection, than that is interesting after all! Wonder what UP is getting out of this money wise; anyone know?
Alon Levy Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Kind of. UP specifically mentioned it’s fine hosting passenger trains on its track at up to 110 mph – but the implicit assumption is that they must be FRA-compliant. However, when UP does host passenger trains, it gives them low priority, and makes them sit at sidings when its own trains are late; Amtrak’s UP routes are usually the least punctual.
Winston Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
UP seems to do what they think they can get away with. On the routes where someone is paying attention (say, for example the Capitol Corridor) they do very well at keeping Amtrak trains on time. In fact, they do better than Amtrak does with its own trains on the NEC. Contrast this with the Coast Starlight which has been blessed with less focused attention.
James M. in Irvine Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 7:07 am
California has also paid for lots of extra capacity on the CC route. I don’t think any capacity has been added to the coast route, at least by CA or AMTRAK.
Jim
Paul Dyson Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Except the Capital Corridor where the inducement is sufficient to ensure punctuality of the passenger trains.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
$700 million of public money disappeared almost without trace.
Yeah, the Capitol Corridor is a great example … of how to make UP and Amtrak rich, how to keep the foamers all excited, and how to screw the public interest.
Paul Dyson Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
UP rich for sure. Amtrak? Well, California pays twice for Amtrak through federal taxes and again for the state rail program, while the NEC only pays once. The public gets some benefit but whether its worth the price tag that’s for you to judge.
Peter Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Bad idea to give it to him to judge. If it wasn’t his idea or he disagrees with it, it’s pretty much automatically bad.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
The NEC makes money on operations so the Federal government isn’t spending much on operations. Amtrak itself says that approximately two thirds of what they have spent on capital improvements was paid for by the states. Whatever the Federal government does spend on capital improvements improves Amtrak and also improves commuter rail in Virginia, DC, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachueseets. How much does spending on the Capitol Corridor route improve commuting?
Peter Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
“How much does spending on the Capitol Corridor route improve commuting?”
Who do you think rides Capitol Corridor?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Amtrak?
The “service” is mind-bogglingly inefficient and over-staffed, the energy efficiency is worse than absymal, while the “maintenance” is straight out of the shade tree mechanic’s handbook
Running glacially slowly, carting around crazy numbers of completely redundant crew, dead-heading, endless turnback times, infinite schedule padding: these are all recipes for Amtrak make-work on the public’s dime.
It might make a nice museum type setup, if crewed by volunteers. Come and experience how American pioeneer railroads operated in the nineteenth century! Highball on the green! Ding ding!
Alon Levy Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Amtrak has routes that run on UP tracks outside Northern California.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
A bit off topic, but this video clip illustrates some railroads’ concerns about passenger trains on their property; 1962 footage of the aftermath and cleanup of a B&O passenger train that ran into a derailed freight train on an adjacent track starts at 4:18:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zP8qIZpUJs
BruceMcF Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 3:13 am
Yes, the concern is regarding cost of insurance.
synonymouse Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Families of victims of the Metrolink wreck want to raise the $200 million limit on damage claims. ERh UP and other rr’s have valid concerns about liability.
As put by the old dons in “Casino” when they decide to whack everybody who could incriminate them:
“Why take a chance?”
BruceMcF Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 8:31 am
For UP, it seems to be more than just liability ~ given the entrenched property tax assessments in California, they have much less incentive to sell presently idle Californian right of way than, say, CSX ~ another railroad with a bad reputation for honoring the formal passenger rail priority, but a railroad that has several times offered right of way for sale for putting in passenger only track.
Rick Rong Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
See UPRR’s letter, April 23, 2010, pages 3 to 4, for some additional information as to what concerns UPRR cites from a safety perspective.
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/05/latest-union-pacific-extortion-letter-to-california-shows-that-fra-and-possibly-congressional-legislative-guidance-are-needed/
Here are IL Amtrack Routes
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Route_C&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245664293
FWIW, Southern IL University has campus in Carbondale and Edwardsville, bother serviced by Amtrack, the Edwardsville campus will see the “HSR” service.
Meanwhile in NC
Republicans to Perdue: Give high speed rail money back.
http://www.wcnc.com/news/politics/Republicans-to-Perdue-Give-high-speed-rail-money-back-118478689.html
The project, expected to create 4,000 jobs, will include building a second track from Charlotte to Greensboro, building bridges to eliminate time-consuming crossings, and straightening tracks to allow the trains to travel at a faster speed. The state estimates, eventually, the work will shorten the length of travel from Raleigh to Charlotte by approximately 28 minutes.
Andy M. Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 7:32 am
Even if they bring down journey times below three hours, they’re still only averaging about 60mph so this isn’t really high speed by any stretch, but still a wothwhile investment.
joe Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Let’s see.
3 hrs 22 minutes with 8 stops. Getting that time just under 3 hours would match what Google Maps estimates it takes to drive that same distance, 179 miles, without traffic.
Cutting 28 minutes off a 180 mile ride is pretty good. Putting that trip on par with a car is very good.
Now I know the project will be stopped.
orulz Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 8:17 am
It is extremely unlikely that a bill to kill the RR improvements would make it through the Governor’s office without a veto (she is a Democrat.)
The NCRR has an adjusted schedule until April 21 due to track work. The actual current scheduled time between Raleigh and Charlotte is 3h12m.
Andy M. Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 4:07 am
The service is presently twice daily. Unless that is going to improve, even matching driving times isn’t going to make a huge dent in highway usage. It’s a step in the right direction of course. But let’s not fool ourselves into believing this is a silver bullet.
Alan F Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 7:19 am
The service along the Charlotte to Raleigh, NC corridor is actually 3 daily trains with the Carolinian which goes to Washington DC and on the NEC to NYC and the 2 daily Piedmonts from Charlotte to Raleigh. The plan is to increase the Piedmont frequency to at least 4 daily trains for the funding received so far. They added the 2nd daily Piedmont only last summer and have more than doubled ridership.
The NC corridor is one segment of the larger plan for the SouthEast HSR Corridor with 3 major sections: Washington DC to Richmond VA, Richmond to Raleigh NC, Raleigh to Charlotte NC. The NC DOT goal for the Raleigh to Charlotte corridor is to close all grade crossings and get max speeds up to 90 mph. The NC & VA plan for the Richmond to Raleigh section is to acquire the abandoned CSX S-Line from Petersburg, VA to Norlina, NC for a shorter route than the current A-Line, straighten out a bunch of curves, close all grade crossings on the section, upgrade for 110 mph speeds on the S-Line. But it would also prepare the ROW for future electrification and higher speeds. While not true HSR, the new route along with improvements to the DC to Richmond corridor would reduce current travel times from DC to Raleigh by over 2 hours with a goal of 4 daily trains between Charlotte NC and DC & the NEC.
Hope the Tea Party Republicans in NC do not get anywhere in stalling or killing this project. The NC and VA DOTs have been working many years with modest state funding to lay the groundwork for the SE HSR corridor and implement incremental improvements to service. While the current plan is not true HSR, it establishes a route and ROW for a future electrified HSR corridor connecting from the NEC at DC to Charlotte and eventually to Atlanta if SC and Georgia ever get on board.
Andy M. Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 7:30 am
Thanks for that info. I wasn’t aware of the scale of this project. NC has financed a number of passenger rail projects over the years so they certainly do recognise the value.
Alan F Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 9:02 am
If you want to read about the Southeast HSR plans, the website is http://www.sehsr.org/. The EIS documents with many maps for the Richmond to Raleigh section are on there. The only part of the corridor that has real planning is the DC to Richmond to Raleigh to Charlotte NC part. Until the HSR funding came out, SC and Georgia planners did not even attend meetings.
The FEIS and Record of Decision for the Richmond to Raleigh section are supposed to be done this year.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 8:26 am
Note that “lets not fool ourselves that this is a silver bullet” is always sound advice. For the kinds of problems that HSR helps address (whether Express HSR or Rapid Rail), there are no silver bullets ~ so not real world project every qualifies as one.
O/T but tells a lot about modern capitalism:
On the Industry page of Le Figaro I read: “Alstom to lay off 4,400 worldwide”.
On the Money page: “Alstom stock up 1.8″.
Just announce a massive layoff and your stock shoots up nearly 2% overnight…
Andrew in Ezo Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
In corporate parlance, “rightsizing”…
Eh, there’s plenty more to say, but perhaps Robert doesn’t want to:
Obviously the start to construction means that Illinois is going to try and aggressively apply for the returned Florida money arguing that they have broken ground. I wouldn’t be surprised if the application is largely for upgrades that would allow a high speed train between O’Hare and the Loop in Chicago. That would preserve partially the idea behind FLHSR and create a real intermodal strategy in a friendly state (Illinois)
The Administration though, may decide that makes Obama look like he’s favoring his home state (and Chicago graft) and not do it. But that’s what I see happening.
joe Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
I’d be stunned if Chicago was able to meet the deadlines for shovel ready work to expand the CTA line into a HSR segment. The line, I rode it as a kid from Addison to the Loop, runs along an expressway and across dense neighborhoods. And would they tunnel under the loop? No way Jose.
IL may have some other improvements to the two other Amtrack lines to Quincy or Carbondale but that would be it to improve total travel time.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 8:06 am
Problem is that St. Louis – Chicago is not a heavily traveled corridor compared to say, 1880. Sure there’s more people than the 19th century, but there are also more corridors with heavier traffic. Also, unless steamboats are going to make a comeback, not sure why you would want to go to Carbondale.
Believe me, I understand your skepticism about the CTA line. But for Chicago it’s a high priority because they want to preserve Chicago’s role in finance (commodities) and to be the first city in America with a direct, one-stop Paddington Express-type train from the Loop to O’Hare would be a tremendous advantage.
“Some might claim that a flights enabled with WiFi would even the playing field”
Nope. Critics always fail to consider that for shorter distances, the amount of time one can actually use WiFi in the air is peanuts compared to rail.
On a plane, you can’t just fire up your smartphone or laptop as soon as you board and get to work due to the “please turn off all your electronic equipment until we reach cruising altitude” statement. From the time you board to the time you can actually use your laptop can be as much as an hour depending on tarmac delays, and even then you only get to use it for less than 30 minutes because by then it’s already on landing approach.
On rail, you can fire up your mobile device as soon anytime you want. No waiting for cruising altitude. No frustration on nothing to do while waiting for take off. The moment the train leaves the station, it’s on it’s way to it’s destination, not being number 10 for take off sitting at the same airport for as much as an hour for a 30 minute flight in the air.
synonymouse Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Jerry Brown’s tax measure is dicey”
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre72n0w8-us-economy-california-poll/
And if, a real possibility, federal hsr funding is cut significantly, the CHSRA will have to look at a new game plan.
It should dump the Borden to Corcoran turkey and concentrate on closing the Bakersfield-Sylmar gap. To that end it should take another, in-depth, hold the sacred cows, look at both the Tehachapi and Tejon alignments. If it is going to be passenger only Tejon deserves every consideration, not summary dismissal, as it is superior in every way. If you insist on Tehachapi, it should be looked at again to determine if there is any approach that could make it freight-worthy, including base tunnels.
If projected traffic does not materialize, and you end up with maybe altogether 25 trains a day and even then not full, the current Tehachapi scheme will be way underutilized in relation to its very high cost of construction and the ongoing MOW. It will stand as a poorly conceived gold-plated embarrassment requiring perennial subsidy
VBobier Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Borden and Corcoran are mere end points to the initial construction, It’s Fresno and Bakersfield where Stations will be at.
Peter Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
He knows it, but it suits his red herring “arguments” to repeat things he knows to be untrue ad nauseum.
synonymouse Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
If you are going to get “x” amount of money, period, where you rather spend it – triple tracking the Santa Fe Borden to Corcoran or closing the Bakersfield-Sylmar gap? And believe it; there’s no guarantee that any tax measure will pass – even a “soak the rich” labor sponsored November initiative. Unlike the June extension it would not receive business ritchie rich support. So figure on the best rail passenger you can get on an austerity budget.
Besides you could make an excellent case for a freight-worthy Tehachapi upgrade. It is a busy route and would afford a steady source of revenue to offset the construction cost and MOW. The Saint Gotthard base tunnel will handle a large volume of freight.
VBobier Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
You pay for the geological study & the Tunnel under Tejon Synonymouse & I’m sure the CHSRA might look at It.
thatbruce Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Besides, there is already funding for the segments between Fresno and Bakersfield, to say nothing of the required EIRs being significantly further along than those required between Bakersfield and Palmdale.
synonymouse Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
The CHSRA will have to prioritize and take care of the politix to accomplish that end.
The Post Office is closing 2,000 offices. Hope it is not my local one. Times are tough.
Clem Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Not to mention, your mobile devices won’t depend on any infrastructure in the actual rail vehicle. They’ll tie into the wireless grid directly, something you’ll never be able to do on a plane.
J. Wong Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Hmm, not necessarily true today. It depends on whether the wireless carriers have antennas that cover all of the track. Since the ROW will sometimes be far from any heavily traveled roads, it may not have coverage, and some roads don’t have coverage even today.
thatbruce Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
That is indeed true today. However, there are a number of examples today of carriers actively seeking to have their networks usable within railway infrastructure (eg, BART and the Washington Metro) in recent years, following moves outside the US to have dedicated coverage for passengers.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
For CAHSR, which away from Pacheco Pass follows major roads, it’s not really an issue. And even at Pacheco Pass, there’s probably coverage coming from the Pacheco Pass Highway.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
TMCNET article on the system used on TGV Est.
Trains have a mobile antenna pointing at the Atlantic Bird satellite, with relays taking over in tunnels.
The SNCF had underestimated the number of passengers using the service, with the result that videos are sometimes a bit jerky.
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Whatever wireless tech you’re using now, don’t count on it being around 10 years from now. We’re a good 8 years away from needing to worry about connectivity on the trains.
Insisting on adding wi-fi now would have been like insisting on putting a modem jack on every seat 10 years ago. 28.8 baud for everyone!
Clem Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Spot on.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 3:05 am
Yes, for ten years in advance, specify outcome, not technology: wireless internet access.
And from what little I have read about LTE, the next generation of wireless, they are designing around “cars are the fastest people move” HSR may be moving too fast. The train itself, even if it didn’t have passengers will be connected to a network. No reason why the capacity on that network can’t be engineered to handle a train load of web surfers. Whatever the technical details you’ll be able to stand up from your seat in the waiting room or the bench on the platform, move to your seat on the train without every losing your connection to the internet radio station you are listening to….
political_incorrectness Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
LTE has a huge data potential. Tests of the HTC Thundebrolt showed 15 megabytes per second download/5 upload. That is about as fast as a cable Internet connection. With those speeds, I would deploy some towers near the line where there are not cell towers and in the tunnels. If those speeds can be given to individual users, streaming on the go is possible. Try doing that on an airplane.
Off topic, but from either the recession or from changing generations, the auto scrapping rate remains higher, and average vehicle age is increasing to practically 10 years.
http://www.bodyshopbiz.com/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000404235
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011/03/off-to-the-junkyard-vehicle-scrappage-rates-soar/
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=american+automobile+scrappage+rate
Also off-topic, the census just said New York’s population increased by only 160,000 over the decade – less than the number of housing units added. What are the chances those numbers are real?
Winston Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
I don’t think there is any reason to expect that the census is less accurate now than it was in 2000. Its entirely possible that all the new construction was offset by a decline in household size elsewhere in the city. This is especially likely if the increasing land values in NYC are attracting more single people and encouraging families with Children to move away.
Spokker Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Undocumented residents?
Or the housing units were added but are now vacant, unable to be sold.
JJJ Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
I believe NYC has an official “housing crisis” which means there are too few homes available.
I’d go with census problems.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
They’ve had an official housing crisis since World War II.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Given that the average housing unit is built for 2-3 people and not 1, we’re talking about an additional 100,000 or so vacant housing units. And yet rents are as high as ever, and housing prices are well above 2000 levels… either the law of supply and demand is wrong, or the census is wrong.
Alai Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 3:11 am
Doesn’t mean that the same number of people continue to live there, regardless of what it’s built for. If there was a 5-person family living in a house which moved out, and a rich childless couple moved in…
Alon Levy Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
According to the ACS estimates, household size in New York slightly increased between 2000 and 2005-9.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 7:16 am
Or the vacant properties and the areas with unit shortages are not located in the same place, even if they are located in the same metropolis.
joe Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Or that the number of individuals per household changed, i.e. lowered.
Clem Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
That has been the trend for decades.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
The growth in housing units in the 2000s was at a multi-decade high. It’s not just a trend for lower household size.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Destruction of housing units is at a multi decade low. Where’d ya think those broad swaths of empty land in the Bronx and Brooklyn came from?
France has dicontinued its scrappage program as it was realized it had created many jobs abroad but very few at home. It favored low CO2 emission, and French carmakers have outsourced small car manufacturing to Eastern Europe and Turkey. Renault is now Turkey’s #1 exporter.
A patriotic Frenchman who wants to be sure his car was built by French workers has only one choice: Toyota Yaris!
Did the US scrappage program create many jobs at home, or did it create them in Mexico?
VBobier Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 12:14 am
It wasn’t about creating jobs according to the wiki, the program was a rebate(a discount off of the new vehicle price that went to the Dealers directly) where someone could trade in their older car that had a lower fuel economy, Than the new car to be bought had. The Program started on July 1st 2009 and did not exist after November 2009. So I’d say no jobs were ever created as that was not the programs purpose.
Alai Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 3:13 am
I could never understand that program.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 2:58 am
A net effect of about 2,000 jobs June 2009-May 2010 (Li, Linn and Spiller 2010) ~ that is US job share, I don’t see anywhere in the paper where they discuss job share in other countries.
synonymouse Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Somewhat ot:
The UP dispatched a rotary to Donner this am, as reported on the Altamont site. Remember how at the beginning of this winter the meteorological gurus were predicting a moderate La Nina but we have weather more typical of a relatively strong El Nino. You have to wonder if the global climate is really changing toward the more complex and unpredictable.
We might be seeing more snow in the mountains, which would bolster the case for base tunnels that would be snow free.
And lets treat the recommendation of the “experts” with healthy skepticism. They are far from disinterested or objective – rather their findings are sadly often compromised and tainted by political and economic agendas. How do you relate hysteria over the very thought of tunnels thru Tejon and perfect equanimity over more nuclear plants in California. The Fukushima situation is deteriorating and is providing a test case for what could happen elsewhere. Meantime our experts party line is nothing could possibly go wrong.
If you blindly subscribe to the “leave it to the consultants – they know better” nostrum you will end up with crap like BART broad gauge. If these engineers didn’t come up with findings that agreed with the preferences and plans of those who hired them said engineers wouldn’t be working in this town anymore.
synonymouse Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Apparently Donner is closed not just due to snow but also a power line across the tracks. But the UP has an alternative – the Feather River line.
Note to CHSRA: nice and handy to have a backup. AFAIK the PB scheme does not permit of any re-routing in case of any of the numerous ramifications of Murphy’s Law.
thatbruce Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Since you’re in favor of having base tunnels through the geologically interesting Tejon pass in lieu of any other routing between the LA basin and the Central Valley, where, pray tell, is the backup route under your/Tolmach’s scheme?
synonymouse Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Assuming that the Tejon alignment would involve tunnels too long to accommodate diesel you would need dual-fuel locomotives that could operate over Tehachapi in case of closure of the passenger only route.
Now if the Quantum scheme incorporated tunnels short enough to do diesel, no problem. I am assuming everything is UP-Amtrak FRA-AAR dinosaur rated. Electrification is highly desirable but dependent upon funding.
Still think Tehachapi deserves a good look-over to determine if there is any possible freight acceptable upgrade. That would resolve an ongoing bottleneck and would be intensively used.
thatbruce Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
In addition to changing the route, you’ve also changed the parameters of the trainsets, allowing them to nominally use any other bit of rail. Under that expanded parameter, Tejon has a backup route, as does any new routing via Tehachapi (specifically, the backup would be the coastal route).
Under the parameters of non-FRA trainsets, which you’ve left in place in your dismissal of CAHSR via Tehachapi, neither Tehachapi nor Tejon have a backup route available. A poor argument indeed.
synonymouse Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Considering how disaster prone California is you really do need all 3 alternatives.
The substantial hitch is getting the UP’s co-operation, which I do not think is going to happen overnight. One possibility is for the UP-Amtrak to operate a hybrid hsr(yes I’ve changed parameters to FRA, which I think PB is up to anyway)under franchise or the like.
I wonder just how much the UP is enamored of the 99-Tehachapi route. In this life many things are for sale if the price is right. They say they will never sell but there could be something they covet even more. Mergers can produce interesting spinoffs.
synonymouse Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
And of course in the best of all possible worlds you would have the I-5 racetrack as the main and 99 as the backup. 4 alternatives.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Well until Bill Gates and Warren Buffet leave their billions to the CAHSR, California can only afford one route. you can’t on one hand argue that there will be too few riders, which you do quite frequently and then argue that three routes are needed to assure continuity. Or you can’t on one hand argue that Tejon doesn’t face serious risk of being out service and then argue that 3 altrnates to the main route are needed.
Clem Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Does anyone have a copy of the Quantm study of Tejon?
synonymouse Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
@ Clem
This is a link I got from a poster on the Altamont Press site back to a TRAC issue from the time the Quantm study was released:
http://www.calrailnews.com/crn/0602/0602_1.pdf
Clem Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Thanks. The tooth fairy sent me some good stuff about the Quantm study that is apparently no longer on the CHSRA website.
Their I-5 alignment crosses both San Andreas and Garlock at grade, more or less perpendicular, although the Garlock is crossed in a rather deep trench in the flood plain of Castac Lake (not to be confused with Castaic Lake nearby to the south). I guess the problem is that the lake could empty through the tunnel?
There is also the Bakersfield – LA regional study that is tucked away in a dark corner of the CHSRA site. It doesn’t seem to mention Quantm much at all.
synonymouse Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Looks like the tunnels just miss the fault zones, but I don’t understand the need for the cuts. Electric trainsets should be able to handle the gradients. Doesn’t the Tehachapi plan also call for 3.5%? Did Quantm compare mileages?
I fail to see the advertised fatal flaws. Is it a question of who owns the property the route would intrude upon?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
They only way to convince you there are flaws is to dig the tunnel and have them appear.
synonymouse Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
The same pitfalls apply to the Tehachapi tunnels and the route is much longer.
My impression is that diesels would be stressed and bog down on 3.5% on either alignment and that dual-fuel locomotives would be the way to go. If they were to phase in to Amtrak locomotive hauled trains would be necessary.
Peter Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
That’s why Bakersfield will not be connected to Palmdale or LA without HSR trains. There’s just not real point.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Sorry, the same pitfalls don’t affect the Tehachapi tunnels, which has been pointed out to you many many many times. You don’t need dual fuel locomotives either, there are other solutions.
synonymouse Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:45 am
The best you can say for Tehachapi tunnels is that the odds appear to be somewhat better that you won’t run into nasty surprises when you start digging. But odds are just mathematical probabilities and you could come up snake-eyes at Tehachapi and inversely get lucky at Tejon. Quantm’s tunnels aren’t that long and professional borers like Herrenknecht have encountered worse. Too bad the New Yorker article on Herrenknecht and the Saint Gotthard is not available online in its entirety. It goes into some detail about the scheist, gas pockets, water, etc. that they ran into in the course of 40 miles. They can do Tejon.
Hopefully Richard Branson, and other interested parties, will see their way to dig deeper into the details of the PB plan and ferret out the controversies.
And speaking of odds, what about the possibility that the actual passenger count will come out way under projections. The Detour will be manifestly underutilized and come to be regarded as a white elephant.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
You get to roll the dice once in Tejon. There’s a whole casino of crap tables in Tehachapi.
synonymouse Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
That would hold if you built all the “crap tables in Tehachapi” but since you will have to pick out one it still comes down to a lot of dumb luck in the end. Meantime Tejon is always and still 40-50 miles shorter.
A bit off-topic but I think of interest – the weather. Seems that LA is experiencing the wettest La Nina in 60 years:
http://www.sierraphotography.com/wxnotes/
And the UP dumped its rotary on the ground on the way up to Donner. The perils of winter railroading in the West. CHSRA take notice – there’s snow in them thar Tehachapis.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
The Laerdal road tunnel in Norway is 15.23 miles long and is used by thousands of big diesel trucks. Beside ventilation it also has an air treatment plant.
I don’t see where this was posted here in the last few days.
CAHSRA posted the list of companies that responded to the RFEI.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9832