DesertXpress Final EIS Completed
The Vegas-to-Victorville (and eventually to Palmdale and LA Union Station) DesertXpress high speed rail project has gotten one step closer to construction, with the completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Comments on the Final EIS will begin on April 1 and will be accepted until May 2.
Senator Harry Reid and US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood both spoke at a news conference in Las Vegas today:
“Our nation’s first high-speed rail project means one thing for Nevada: jobs,” said Reid. “This announcement brings us one small step away from tens of thousands of new jobs not only through the project’s construction, but by boosting our tourism. This line will connect tourists from southern California to our state’s great attractions like the Las Vegas Strip and the Hoover Dam. This announcement is excellent news for our state’s economic recovery.”
“This is an important day for high-speed rail in Nevada,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “High-speed rail will create jobs, reinvigorate our manufacturing sector and spur economic development for years to come in Nevada and around the country.”
Not everyone is happy, including the city of Barstow, which is upset that they’re going to be bypassed:
From the Barstow Desert Dispatch:
With the completion of the final Environmental Impact Statement, the train only needs approval by the Federal Railroad Administration before it can begin construction. Reid estimated at the press conference that the train could begin construction as early as one year from the time of approval of the final EIS.
Part of the final EIS is the economic study Barstow commissioned last year, as well as a study of the predicted employment and economic impact commissioned by DesertXpress.
The City of Barstow is opposed to the DesertXpress project because the economic study commissioned by the city estimates it will decrease traffic traveling through the city to Las Vegas by up to 33 percent and the project could result in a combined loss of 2,295 jobs within the city. Both the City of Ontario and the Helendale Community Services District have signed resolutions opposing the DesertXpress train.
Barstow Councilman Tim Silva said Friday that the city would take a look at the EIS now that it has been finalized and the city would continue its efforts to halt the progress of the train.
I’m not unsympathetic to Barstow. But at the same time, saying that we shouldn’t build a bullet train because it might hurt Barstow is like saying we shouldn’t have built the telegraph because it put the Pony Express out of business. As a nation and a society, we should be providing resources to enable cities like Barstow to adapt to change, instead of slashing government spending and driving a city like Barstow to try and cling to a costly, failing model for its city (being a stopover for drivers on the way to or from Vegas).
So when is construction going to start?
StevieB Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
If the FRA approves the 4.9 billion dollar loan then construction could start before California high speed rail.
Nathanael Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
That, however, seems extremely unlikely. The loan request is much larger than any loan ever given from that FRA loan program, if I’m reading the information correctly, and it’s not even clear that the loan program has authorization to lend that much money,
Private industry driven HSR like DesertXpress is just making the anti-HSR tea party Governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida look more foolish by the day.
MGimbel Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
They’ll learn, all in good time.
Anthony Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 8:51 am
Not to talk trash but…. We’ve talking about this for decades and it was always going to get built. Having another option to driving or flying make sense to Las Vegas. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that.
Hmmm, loss of 2300 jobs in Barstow versus a gain of how many jobs through the train?
VBobier Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
During or After construction?
On a related note, I don’t like the fact that DX won’t be building a Station in Barstow CA, This seems rather short sighted on their part, I’d think people would like to board in Barstow and from the 7 surrounding communities & Barstow, Which includes Hinkley, Which DX called Hickley in Appendix F-E…
Oh and I live in Yermo CA, At least DX didn’t mess that up.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
HSR stations, even single platform Amtrak stations are very expensive. There aren’t enough people in Barstow to justify the expense.
VBobier Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
You have to remember Barstow is a hub, 6 other nearby communities feed off of Barstow, 7 If one counts Hinkley. Those 6 combined, I think, Might have a population somewhere near in size to
Barstow, I say might, As I don’t know the 2010 census population numbers for Barstow and the 7 communities. Yermo is supposed to have a population of about 2,000 people, Not a lot, of course. Of course not included in the report is the population out at the Fort Irwin Army Base, Which could make It number 8 and It’s not exactly small I’d think, As from time to time one does see in Barstow, US Army Personnel from Fort Irwin.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Barstow could always pay for such a station themselves if they so desired it.
VBobier Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Problem is, Would DX stop there to pickup and/or drop off passengers?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
There would have to be enough passengers to make it worthwhile. Assuming someone comes up with the millions of dollars it would cost to build a station …. and the really long station sidings you would need to be able to stop without blocking the mainline.
AlanF Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
The 2010 census numbers for Barstow were 22,639, so there is a modest sized population. Bigger population base if the military training centers out in the desert are added in.
How much would it cost, ballpark figure, to build a basic station with sidings long enough for a 150-180 mph system with 600-800 foot platforms, canopy over the center part of the platforms, modest no frills station, big enough parking lot? The land in Barstow should be pretty inexpensive. $10, $20, $50 million? If the city were willing to put up half the cost, they might be able to get a mix of federal grants, state grants, and DX funding to cover the other half. The city leaders would be much smarter to work with DX, not fight them.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
$20 million or so is about right for a barebones station.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Keep the arithmetic simple: Ridership projections for the full system are that everyone one in the state will take one one way trip a year or one roundtrip every two years.
36,500 divided by 365 is 100 passengers a day. The Federal government and DX are going to aske “Isn’t a bus a better solution?” It could be a reallly realllllly lush bus. One round trip a day would be able to handle the traffic. Get a shorter reallly reallly lush bus and they might be able to fill up two roundtrips a day.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 7:24 am
Why,, Barstow and Victorville are close enough together that one bus could make far more than two trips a day.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 9:20 am
I should have been more specific. You can service the passenger load with one round trip of a full bus once a day. If you want to run a 50 passenger bus with 5 people on it, it could run ten times a day. It would probably make more sense to run a extended van/airport shuttle kinda thing then. ……… though at 100 passengers a day or 50 round trips the realllllly realllly lush option is to give everyone in Barstow free cab service to the station in Victorville, if they have a ticket.
Free cab rides are probably cheaper than building a station.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Yes, an eight passenger van would be closest to the kind of bus service I had in mind, not a big city bus ~ given the range, and the need to run a route to arrive in advance of and return following a train passing through, a pluggable electric of some sort seems likely.
Al Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
I think it’s also worth noting that stations can be added later, too. For instance someone might propose a major development/whatever in Barstow and a station could be built as part of that.
Nathanael Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Well, define “very expensive”. I believe your average grade-level platform costs $1 million (whether high or low platform), perhaps $2 million if you include all the fancy stuff like ADA edging and ramps.
Probably HSR would require a bypass track and four switches to go with it, which likely doubles the cost.
The $20 million estimate would include expensive items like canopies and benches and a parking lot and electrical service and other city services.
A couple of interesting things about the story are:
1. The mayor and others are trying to fight this because they really think it will replace cars. What happened to all that talk about “nobody rides trains?” At the same time, I think they are even sillier for fighting this as as it is a private enterprise! What happened to all the talk about “free enterprise,” “private initiative,” and even “capitalism?” Why, this is the closest thing we’ve seen so far to a real John Galt Line. Barstow politicians–what a bunch of phonies!
2. Is Barstow that small that only three people commented about it on the newspaper’s website? And no comments about trains being “socialist” or “unAmerican?” Granted, I’ve never been west of Ohio, but considering the other anti-rail (and pro-rail) talk that has appeared in California that sounds like everywhere else, its relative absence on the Barstow site seems a little unusual.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
a Dagny Taggart line. Mr. Galt doesn’t need and doesn’t want a railroad anywhere. he’s off in his hideaway.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
I never read the book, but from what people have told me about it, you made a good choice. Dagny Taggert would look a lot better than John Galt, at least to a straight guy!
Which brings to mind, where did Ayn Rand get such names? They sound rather unusual to my ears.
joe Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
Alon Levy Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:08 am
The Milwaukee was even closer. Unlike the Great Northern, the original Taggart line, it didn’t even get land grants.
Of course, it also collapsed because of poor business decisions. Government isn’t the only entity that can wreck infrastructure.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:17 am
That would be the one where GE offered to underwrite the costs of electrifying the rest of their mainline, and instead they chose to de-electrify and dieselize right before the oil embargo, right?
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Yes, the copper in the lines looked attractive and diesel would, of course, be cheap forever. Oh the perils of basing long term decisions on commodity spot prices.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Well it was a decision made by people who didn’t notice that the books were being cooked to make it appear that electrification was the money sink on the line.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Its always safer in public description to assume ignorance rather than connivance, but its risky to assume that those who made the decision were unaware of the cooking of the books ~ they may have been aware of it and, for their own reasons, happy with the result.
Nathanael Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
The full story of the Milwaukee Road may never be known — but yes, in addition to the idiot decision to dieselize and tear down the wires, it was discovered that all the costs on the “Pacific Extension” had been entered twice for decades, generating apparent losses amid actual gains. It was discovered after the line had been *demolished*.
It seems genuinely bizarre, as I cannot really figure out why they would want to do that. It doesn’t seem to have benefitted anyone at all to claim that their transcontinental line was unprofitable when it was actually profitable. Perhaps it was in order to get the ICC to allow them to raise rates, but that doesn’t account for their decision to ACTUALLY SHUT DOWN THE LINE AND TEAR IT UP, which they did based on the inaccurate accounting.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Yep, that one. But GE didn’t offer to underwrite electrifying the entire mainline, just the gap in Idaho and Washington between the two existing electric districts. Service from Harlowton to Chicago would remain diesel-only.
Interesting to note that the Barstow study doesn’t support the city’s claims.
AlanF Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
I’m just skimming what is a rather large EIS, so maybe I’m missing something. Rather than be afraid about the loss of automobile traffic, why not instead offer to help build a station stop at Barstow? Most trains would not stop at Barstow, but some could. Could get some who live in Barstow but commute to Vegas. Could also get some of the military personnel in the Barstow area who head to Vegas for R&R.
If/when the Desert Express connects to the CA HSR at Palmdale, all the major cities of California would be only a few hour train ride from Barstow. If the city leaders were looking ahead, they should be working with Desert Express to see what the options are for a station, not fighting the train.
VBobier Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Exactly, Thanks AlanF.
joe Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Would HSR stop in Barstow, let riders off to get food, drinks, piss and then board for the remainder of the trip?
What is the purpose of being in Barstow aside from it being a stopping point for a car drive?
barstow was a mining town, silver. Not a good reason to make it stop, a city that grew around a deposit and happened to be a stop on a HW.
Walter Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 9:19 am
This is spot-on. If Barstow’s economy is THAT dependent on travelers from SoCal to Vegas stopping and buying food, drinks and gas, a HSR station won’t help. It’s not like people will be getting off the train to buy stuff.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Well consider this however:
If there’s a connection between Desert Xpress and CAHSR, a station at Barstow helps alleviate the problem of transfers. Because ultimately you will have some people need to head back to San Francisco and there won’t be a straight connection at the time they want. In theory, they would take the DX to Palmdale and wait to catch a northbound CAHSR. But that presumes that the station there will accommodate that.
Barstow is also much closer to Tehachapi than Victorville OR Palmdale.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Why transfer? A junction from around Barstow to the HSR line in Mojave would provide a one-seat ride.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:28 am
He’s thrashing around for problems for his solution to solve.
The station in Palmdale is going to accommodate transfers unless they have separate stations for northbound traffic and southbound traffic. If they are stupid enough to do that you are transferring in Barstow to a train that could have given you a one seat ride.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:42 am
“He’s thrashing around for problems for his solution to solve.”
Yes, that’s what it seemed like to me, which is why I posed the question.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Not really, but what did I ever do to you?
The issue with DX as proposed is that there’s no stop until Victorville. That’s not an optimal alignment for connection to CAHSR. But even if the DX line is extended into Palmdale, that’s still a ton of backtracking for a SF-LV route. The initial Palmdale station, also, is not going to include a speculative alignment for DX.
But even if and when it does, the assumption being made by you is false. If a person is going from SF to LA, but can’t make the nonstop train, he has two options. One, wait in Palmdale for the next SF to LA train or transfer to a southbound DX. Depending on how the Express routes are allocated, it’s entirely possible to take an Express train from SF to LV, jump off in Barstow and then hit a southbound DX to LA and beat the local SF-LA train that was following behind.
It’s a triangle, Techachapi, Palmdale, and Barstow. You ignore the third point at the expense of the other two.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
If the schedule frequency is so low that transferring…. anywhere… makes more sense than waiting a few minutes for the next SF-LA train it doesn’t make sense to build the system or a stub outh to Las Vegas. You are searching for a problem that your solution solves.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
What does a station in Barstow have to do with this: “The issue with DX as proposed is that there’s no stop until Victorville. That’s not an optimal alignment for connection to CAHSR.”
A junction to the CAHSR corridor at Mojave from Barstow does pose any requirement for a Barstow station.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 8:59 am
I think you are making Barstow out to be the next Palo Alto. Don’t make that mistake.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Since when I read that, it is a total non-sequitur, I take that as reassurance that I am not making Barstow out to be the next Palo Alto. It is a small town in a lightly populated area with a few other very small towns that can act as very low level central places, sufficiently close to a larger town that one would be very careful in deciding whether to put a commuter rail platform there ~ the decision to put a HSR station there is a tenuous one.
And the decision whether to put an HSR station there is entirely independent of the alignment question ~ my preference if for a junction to the HSR Stage 1 corridor at Mojave, which would branch from the original LV / Victorville corridor at Barstow, but that still leaves us without any discernable reason to put an HSR station at Barstow.
If there is a later desire to overlay a commuter service ~ say, as part of adaptive re-use of improvements to the Antelope Valley Metrolink corridor in support of its use by a preliminary version of the Stage 1 service …
… and there is sufficient capacity on the LV corridor to satisfy that desire without interfering from its principle public benefit …
… installation of a terminal commuter rail platform on a conventional rail siding at that time is clearly the cost-effective way to do that.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Dude, I ain’t losing sleep over this. The issue is that there’s going to be political pressure to not favor actual passenger demand as opposed to service. That means, there are going to be some locals on CHSRA that fly emptier than expresses. Now, given current travel trends, if an express from LA to LV or SF to LV leaves before a local and then can make the transfer to a another express via Barstow expect people to pick that option.
The busiest airports in the world aren’t the ones in the biggest cities. They are hubs where there are lots of transfers. Having a stop in Barstow isn’t about penciling in ridership from its surrounding areas, it’s about understanding just where people on the West Coast travel to and from the most.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
so I’m going to leave Las Vegas on the train to Los Angeles and wait in Barstow for the train that leaves Los Vegas for San Francisco instead of just getting on the train to San Francisco in Las Vegas?
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
No. But yes, I know I said it confusingly.
DX is not going to have Express and Locals most likely. So train time will be likely uniform for departures. Any CAHSR train through the San Joaquin Valley though, is going to have express and locals. This is because currently no one can hit all the stations in a model and meet the time requirement of 2 hours 40 minutes. So IF you can take Expresses from SF to LV and LA to LV, then it is conceivable (if there’s another track laid on 58 from Tehachapi to Barstow) you could beat the CHSRA local by transferring in Barstow.
Or…you could do as a way to handle high fare costs or inordinate demand to and from Vegas on certain days of the week.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
You’d have to get from Mojave to Barstow, transfer and get from Barstow to Palmdale faster than using the local takes. Or faster than waiting for the next express.
Alan F Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
No, the transfer point is going to be at Palmdale (if there is one in the long term). The reason for Barstow to build a station is for the long term growth, if not survival, of Barstow. But Barstow would have to get behind and pick up much of the tab of the cost of building a station stop, because it is not going to be worthwhile to Desert Express to build a station out of their own funds.
If Barstow has some smarter political leaders, they would use their protest against the DX plans as a bargaining chip in order to get DX to make provisions in the planning for a future station location in Barstow that could be added if the DX service succeeds – and it will IF DX can connect to the CA HSR system at Palmdale before their money runs out.
This gets back to the recent posts on the Metrolink service to Palmdale to connect to a CA HSR line running south from Bakersfield through the Tehachapi. If DX can raise the money to do the EIS work, spend the years for the approvals, and extend their route to Palmdale – to the Metrolink station presumably, they too would have an interest in upgrading the existing rail capacity and speeds from LA while waiting for a HSR route to be completed to LA Union Station.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
And I’m not 100% sure how Barstow is going to come up with the $20m to build the station on its own, nor convince DX to stop there if the station is built.
Regarding the Metrolink scenario, if Metrolink was looking to extend a branch in that direction, surely Victorville would be Barstow’s Metrolink station (which might justify running a pair of 8-12 passenger electric vans to the Victorville Metrolink / Vegas station) ~ so its not clear to me why an intercity station would be justified at Barstow. Surely the electric van could have stations in slip lanes along the National Trails Highway to service Helenwood, Lenwood, the Marine logistics base Dagget and Yermo, if providing a connection to Vegas and LA for small towns and cities in the middle of the desert is such a high priority.
And of course a Barstow / Mojave junction would require a station at neither and indeed
would not require a transfer at Palmdale for those in the Bay area who took the direct SF/Vegas service, so it would only be schedule infill for those where the transfer service provided a better fit than the direct services.
Derek Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
It shouldn’t be too hard to convince DX to stop at Barstow once or twice a day.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
To stop once or twice a day they need a 20 million dollar station. HSR trains pick up and discharge passengers at a patch of asphalt by the side of the tracks like Amtrak can.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
….cannot pick up….
Derek Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
I was only addressing the second issue (convince DX to stop there if the station is built), not the first (how Barstow is going to come up with the $20m to build the station on its own).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
It doesnt’ make sense to build a mutlimillion dollar train station if the traffic volume is so low that the train only stops a few times a day. Especially if you can give the people fairly frequent service by running an airport shuttle style bus to the station in Victorville a short distance away.
Derek Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
And I suppose it also doesn’t make sense to build a shopping mall in the middle of an empty field?
VBobier Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Agreed, DX and Barstow should be working together, Barstow needs DX, But DX may not really need Barstow, So It has to be worth It to DX, As long as there’s a provision for a station to be built by Barstow and that DX will stop there If a station exists in Barstow, Then I have no objection to that.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Debatable whether a station in Barstow, with infrequent service, is better for Barstow than frequent bus service to the station in Victorville where there is frequent train service.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
DX needs Barstow. It’s not a state agency, so the city has tremendous power as to land use control that matter to it. Sure, DX could try to loop around the city, but it has the ability to annex that land as well. If they are smart, they will build the route from Barstow to Las Vegas first, and then see how far along CAHSR is before building the last segment.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Courts would slap Barstow hard on that one.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Isn’t the idea here that with the station, Barstow then becomes a rail commuter suburb of bustling Victorville?
Imagine the possibilities! Why, they are endful.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:10 am
An enterprising real estate developer could arrange for Metrolink service via trackage rights. It should be reasonably successful, trip time would be somewhere around 70-90 minutes from Barstow to Los Angeles, about the same as the current Antelope Valley and San Bernardino Lines, which are well trafficked.
If only I and not someone from NY had won that 300 million lottery last night…
Joey Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Problem being, there is about an order of magnitude less population in the eastern Mojave Desert than in the Antelope Valley area. Plus, it’s much more spread out. Commuter service through the Cajón pass is a cool idea, but I just don’t see there being much of a market for it.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Agreed. This is like saying Tehachapi or Mojave deserve a stop on the main HSR line.
Alex M. Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:15 am
Maybe they can add a station later if DX is super successful.
Matthew B Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
and looking to throw away its profits
Sicko misuse of federal money to enable California compulsive gamblers to dump their rent money in another state.
A new study pegs gambling a stronger addiction than coke. Maybe ATF nannys should talk to LaHood.
joe Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Once upon a time there were three billy goats, who were to go up to the hillside to make themselves fat, and the name of all three was “Gruff.”
On the way up was a bridge over a cascading stream they had to cross; and under the bridge lived a great ugly troll , with eyes as big as saucers, and a nose as long as a poker.
So first of all came the youngest Billy Goat Gruff to cross the bridge.
“Trip, trap, trip, trap! ” went the bridge.
“Who’s that building HSR across my State?” roared the troll .
VBobier Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
And a Bah Humbug to You too.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:57 am
California gambling addicts will continue to blow their money at the local native american casinos – they’re cheaper to get to (they generally offer free shuttles).
Barstow is being selfish, but rational.
Did you know that the state is getting ready to spend hundreds of million on a road to bypass Los Banos? The city’s economy is essentially based on it being a giant rest stop for people heading to the coast and up to the bay area. And yet the city is the one requesting the bypass!
How idiotic is that?
Never mind the fact that the bypass will destroy HUNDREDS OF ACRES OF FARMLAND! and we all know new bypass = new exit ramps = new fast food and gas stations (on farmland).
But I havent heard a soul raising a ruckus about it, have you?
joe Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Los Banos stop was ruled out a long time ago. What’s to argue?
Los Banos isn’t on the way – a stop – from SJ to LA. 5 is west of town so auto/truck traffic mostly bypasses the town. It’s not like Barstow.
JJJ Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Im not talking about rail, Im talking about the higway.
Los banos isnt on the way? Huh? Anyone heading from the valley to the coast (Pismo, Monterey, Santa Cruz etc) will drive through it. Anyone from Madera south going to the bay area will drive through it (faster than going up and around).
Check the map:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Fresno&daddr=San+Jose&hl=en&geocode=Fc-5MAIdMmvc-CmdTp5U4V2UgDERuKNJZEASew%3BFfrAOQId1Ae8-Cn1P_mK5MqPgDF7cZ_KCoyduQ&mra=ls&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.160552,69.873047&ie=UTF8&ll=36.831272,-120.827637&spn=2.092803,4.367065&z=8
After Los Banos, theres wilderness until Gilroy, so thats where you stop for food and gas.
joe Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 9:02 am
“Anyone heading from the Valley” would be a set of people too south of 580 and north of 46 using 152. Sure Fresno residents wanting to go to Monterey could stop in Los Banos if they wanted to stop after 150 miles. That’s a fairly small set of people and 1/2 a tank worth of driving distance.
Bakersfield /Mojave drivers would take 46, I take 46 to get from Bakersfield to Gilroy.
N/S Traffic on HW 5 heading west to 152 bypass the city, 5 is west of Los Banos.
JJJ Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
So the 54 fast food restaurants on a 2 mile stretch of road are to serve the local population and not the highway traffic? Got it.
Look, the fastest way to get to the bay area from from Madera to Bakersfield involves Los Banos. The fastes way to the coast cities between Bakersfield and Modesto involves Los Banos.
This is simply a fact.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Have you been living under a rock?
JJJ Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
I havent. Have you?
Off topic, but a special for Andre Peretti–a small promotional film from an American steam locomotive restoration firm on one of their projects–an American-built SNCF locomotive now running in Switzerland:
http://projects.wrrc.us/?p=642
Oh, and the whistle is quite right for an American locomotive, a nice, throaty chime! That’s part of the reason I say passenger cars for steam trains should have openable windows, to let in that wonderful sound (despite the smoke and cinders you get, too).
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
The 141-R, a real beauty, the locomotive of my childhood! It took nearly 8 hours to do Paris-Marseille but I was never bored. I used to stick my nose to the window to catch a glimpse of her when a curve allowed it for a brief moment. The Gare de Lyon then had an atmosphere that I can still feel and smell, and those steam locos really had an animal presence.
I do appreciate the TGV, the silence, the speed, the smoothness. But the romance is gone. The platforms with all those sleek trains aligned along them look to me like a life-size Nintendo game.
Another off-topic item–NARP’s “Hotline News.” Of note in this edition is the Republicans of North Carolina wanting to return Federal money for rail improvements, claiming among other things that this could threaten the viability of the state freight rail network, when in fact it would enhance both the passenger system and the freight network. It even pays for a considerable amount of grade crossing elimination to boot, benefiting motorists!
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_699/
I say, the anti-rail crowd is looking sillier all the time.
VBobier Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Sounds like It, Grade crossing elimination is something the two freight RR’s out here have tried to do, Out here there are only two that I know of, One in Lenwood(Barstow) and One in Daggett… I can hear the train horn sound on a quiet night from the Daggett crossing and I’m several miles distant from there, As the crossing is near the I40 and I live near the I15 freeway.
political_incorrectness Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Talk about idiocy! Impact the freight network? It will help if you eliminate grade crossings and allow higher speeds! Fact is, they probably want money for highways instead.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 8:59 am
Depends on your point of view. As D.P. pointed out grade separating the railroad is money for the highways.
Nathanael Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
If I know the current crop of Republicans, they want money mailed directly to their particular fatcat business friends. Who happen to be from Big Oil, not from the railroads.
Nathanael Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Oh my, so the madness has taken over the Republicans in North Carolina finally. I guess it was only a matter of time; they’ve been acting sane about rail for too many years to remain members in good standing of the Republican Party.
Nice gnarly 4% grades.
Joey Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
4.5% and 110 MPH curves in the middle of the route.
VBobier Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 8:26 am
4.5%? Where? Mountain Pass?
Joey Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
More or less. Take a look at the plan and profile drawings if you want specifics.
VBobier Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
I doubt DX will run a 4.5% grade, Most likely there will be some blasting, Somewhat like CalTrans did when the I15 Fwy had some work done there awhile back.
Clem Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
You “doubt” something that’s in engineering drawings. That’s funny!
VBobier Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
What works on paper doesn’t always work in reality, Besides I thought HSR was limited to a 3.5% grade?
Peter Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Generally, yes. However, the ICE 3 in Germany travels on ICE-only routes with 4% grades, so I’m pretty sure the trains could manage 4.5% grades, just not at full speed.
Clem Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
The issue isn’t speed. It’s restarting (after emergency stop for whatever reason) on the grade, on a rainy day, with some degree of traction system degradation. EMUs have redundant traction systems and it is usually expected that a train can continue running even with some motors off-line.
4.5% will only work with distributed traction EMUs. But it will work.
VBobier Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Trains of any sort that uses steel wheels on steel rails, Requires adhesion and to help improve traction locomotives use sand, I don’t know about HSR EMUs of course, But I suspect It is probably the same or very similar.
Clem Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Here’s what 4% looks like from the cab.
Bulbous Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
There are the three back to back 100mph curves just northeast of Afton Canyon Road, which could easily be replaced by one 150+mph curve if they tunnelled or cut the hill in the middle there. They are not opposed to tunnelling further along, but this forced slowdown due to the desire to stay inside existing corridors makes no sense – it’s simply a half arsed job which will either hamstring future operations, or involve rebuilding at exponential costs later under operating conditions…..
I am the biggest proponent of HSR there is, but why should we be supporting a line that will take Californians to waste their money in Las Vegas? The LA-LV connection is a financial one-way street that drains our state’s coffers and props up the scam artist’s dream that is Las Vegas. Let’s kill the desert express and use the money for an HSR extension that will help save our state rather than sink it: San Francisco to Sacramento, via Oakland and Vallejo.
Also, we should not simply ignore the type of city that Las Vegas is. It is a city of temptation, consumption, frivolity. Its existence is a net minus on the moral character of our state. Californians need to focus on enterprise (commercial or social), community, and family relationships — not alcohol, strip shows, and foolish gambling.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
My philosophy is that if people will ride it, we should build it. I’m not a fan of Las Vegas at all, I find the place to be obnoxious, but it can’t be argued that a LOT of people drive there from Southern California. Makes sense to provide a high speed train if it can be funded privately.
VBobier Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Oh yeah, They sure do, In the recent past the I15 would be clogged with cars in a slow moving parking lot on Fridays and on Sundays, Thankfully I know how to get around that problem, But then I’ve lived out here in Yermo since 2004, There are only surface streets between Yermo & Barstow of course and the nearby I40 exists as a back way into Barstow too. Otherwise enjoy the parking & I hope Ya have filled up in Baker CA, Since between Baker CA and Minneola Rd on the outskirts of Yermo CA, There is No gasoline for sale at all.
Andrew Conning Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 7:46 am
I appreciate the replies. If the desert line is to be built and operated with private money, then so be it. My support for HSR and TOD overrides my objection to making it easier for people to dissipate themselves in Las Vegas.
But this line should not be built with our limited public funds for HSR. When we reach the point that we support any HSR line, no matter where, our advocacy has become ideological. We must establish a track record of balanced, justified decisions of where to build HSR – and where not to – rather than just jumping at every opportunity that presents itself.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 8:13 am
it’s not “every opportunity” Lots of people who will be close to an HSR station that will be built anyway, want to go there. It’s going to be relatively cheap to build. There’s two million people in metro Las Vegas who want to go to places in California. It makes so much sense that private investors are looking at it. If anything it’s one of the few opportunities that make the most sense.
Justin H Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 9:32 am
It sounds like your definition of what “makes the most sense” only includes financial viability. I agree with Andrew’s point that there are other issues to consider. He’s right that a line to Las Vegas is a net minus for the people of California. Private investors are not concerned about that. Let the risk be 100% theirs.
James M. in Irvine Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Would you rather people sit in cars for hours burning gas and diesel, or pay someone to take them where they are going anyway? All that matters is if travelers are given the choice of HSR, flying or driving and they choose HSR. Who cares what their motives are for traveling between LA and Vegas (assuming the DX can get to LA via CAHSR)? I don’t see airlines saying
“We won’t fly to Vegas because all it is is a city of temptation, consumption, frivolity.”. Let people vote with their wallets after the train is built.
Jim M
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Maybe Justin or Andrew can point us to the chapter in the EIS for widening I-15 where they discuss the morality of the project. Or how widening I-15 will facilitate Californians sinning in Las Vegas.
Wad Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Andrew, what makes you think Las Vegas residents — or tourists visiting Las Vegas — have no reason to come to Southern California? We have theme parks, beaches and places that are habitable without HVAC.
Also, we should not simply ignore the type of city that Las Vegas is. It is a city of temptation, consumption, frivolity. Its existence is a net minus on the moral character of our state. Californians need to focus on enterprise (commercial or social), community, and family relationships — not alcohol, strip shows, and foolish gambling.
You’re saying this with tongue firmly in cheek, right? Californians voted affirmatively, twice, to expand Indian gaming.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
and once you have enough to eat and a warm dry place to sleep what the point of enterprise if you can’t get some alcohol gambling and strip shows? If builing HSR is bad for morals then so is building more lanes on I-15 or building more airport.
And believe it or not the people in Las Vegas have families that live in California. Dare I say many of them. Fast frequent trains from Las Vegas to their families in California is supporting family relationships. Makes it easier for Las Vegans to have enterprise with businesses in California too.
I checked on populations, and I found
Victorville 108k, Apple Valley 73k, Hesperia 88k, Adelanto 18k
Barstow 25k
Distance: 32 mi
Barstow is tiny, and not very far away from Victorville.
VBobier Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 8:28 am
Did You check out the surrounding areas population?
Oh and the distance is about 35 miles one way between Barstow and Victorville.
VBobier Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 8:57 am
Daggett 200
Helendale 4936
Hinkley 1915
Lenwood 3222
Newberry Springs 4000
Yermo 2000
——————–
16273
Fort Irwin 9460
Nebo Center 1174
——————–
10634
16273
———-
26907
Barstow 24528
——————
51435 Is the total population for Barstow and the area around It… Not exactly huge of course.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Meh. If I’m starting in Helendale it’s just as easy to drive to Victorville as it is to drive to Barstow.
Every train is going to stop in Victorville to pick up passenger who drove in from San Bernandino. So if I’m running late and I miss my train the next one in Victorville will be there shortly. If I use Barstow and I miss my train I have a two hour wait. I’m going to book my trip using Victorville. If the train isn’t at a convenient time driving to Victorville, where there is a train every 15 minutes or every half hour might be attractive to someone in Barstow who can see the station from their house…..
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:09 am
Then build the bus stop in Barstow for the bus to Victorville station with a nice tall spire, so people can see the bus stop from their house.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Make it tall enough to see it from Victorville!
VBobier Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
I didn’t put Helendale in the DX EIR, DX did, So I included the area, Where as I included two other areas that aren’t included, I also didn’t include the two Marine bases as one is just an annex and I don’t know if the other one in Barstow has base housing or not, So I didn’t include either one.
VBobier Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Oh and the Marine Annex is next to Yermo CA.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Victor, except for people who have no other alternative than to walk to the station in Barstow, people are going to consider driving to Victorville where there is a train every 15 minutes or driving to Barstow where there is a train every two hours. Many of them are going to pick Victorville.
Nathanael Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
35 miles? Definitely not worth putting a station in Barstow then.
I would metaphorically kill for a train station only 35 minutes away, and I live in a larger community than Barstow.
It’s kind of funny. Here synonymouse was worried about Stilt-A-Rail, and now you have Illinois rail projects and Desert Express putting pressure on CHSRA to minimize costs so that you can complete Fresno to Bakersfield.
The Pacific Firewall is under construction.
Why doesn’t Baker also raise a stink about this? Who is going to stop at Bun Boy on the the Mad Greek if everyone speeds past the thermometer on a train?
So if the feds do give DX a $4.9B loan, I assume the risk falls on the taxpayers? I am all for this thing being built, but I still don’t see it succeeding until it links up with CAHSR. So if it is finished before CAHSR, it will go bankrupt and we will have to eat the $4.9B.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:15 am
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean we’d have to eat the $4.9 billion. Bankruptcy would result in either a restructuring of loan repayments or transferring control of the line to the creditors rather than the line’s abolition.
morris brown Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:38 am
If the loan ends up being fully guaranteed by the Feds, then no creditor group would ever accept a re-structuring; they would go out after the guarantee and flee. BTW, it would be 4.9 billion plus interest
We should all line up to become part of the creditors group that is gong to fund this project with the full backing of the US Government. I’m sure the group can get plenty of pork paid to them up front, wait for the bankruptcy to take place, get the courts to repay their equity and interest from the Feds, and walk away fat. Great deal. Unfortunately, I fear to get into the creditor’s group, you will have to have pony up plenty of cash to Senator Reids campaign coffers.
Of course, at this point, the Feds can sell off the line to some casinos for less than $100 million, and the net is win win for Las Vegas and lose lose for everyone else.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:43 am
So it makes more sense for the Federal government to just build it and cut out the profiteers?
synonymouse Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
You really want to blow federal(and partly California)money on making Adelson and Wynn richer?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
How much will the Federal government spend widening I-15 and building a new airport in Las Vegas if they don’t build an alternative like HSR?
synonymouse Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
But trucks can use I-15 and cargo planes a new airport. Not just gamblers about to run out of Aces, as the song goes.
Dan Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Am I the only one who’s never seen many cargo planes in Vegas? Perhaps it’s just because the airport isn’t big enough….
Clem Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Removing a lane’s worth of cars (i.e. people who take the train) is just as good as building a new lane for trucks.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Works that way for airports too. For every passenger plane you remove a cargo plane can take teh slot.
James M. in Irvine Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
And cheaper, too!
Jim
tjon Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
You mean, trucks and planes to service the gamblers which you apparently don’t want going to Vegas anyways?
joe Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Morris is right.
We could fund 5 maybe 6 weeks of the Afgan war with the money the US is wasting on building infrastructure for its deadbeat, lazy, not worth a dime citizens.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Just as the Taiwan HSR line, its going to hit an operating surplus. The financing issue would be whether its sufficient to fully service the debt, but if it is going to be comfortably on that side when CAHSR comes into operation, it would be a good credit risk for rolling over part of the debt service in the interim ~ whether that rollover is done by the public lender or is financed on private markets (though their lower cost of money would leave more to repay the capital if it is done by the public lender).
synonymouse Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
I do see one parallel: there is currently no passenger rail service from LA to LV and no service over the Loop. Is that what is meant by incremental?
Is there a specific reason stated somewhere in the huge FEIS document set that the DesertXpress EIS lists 150 mph (240 kph) as the top speed for the EMU option? Could it be that the FRA top approved speed for the Acela is 150 mph, and DX, in order to not have to be the first ones to deal with the FRA regulatory approval – and the costs involved – for faster speeds, decided to stick with 150 mph in their initial planning?
There are 280 to 300 kph (174 to 186 mph) HSR corridors in service and being built. Why not opt for a 160 to 180 mph class system, if 220 mph is too costly for them to build and operate? Or is DX planning to build their tracks to a >150 mph standard, but publicly opting for 150 mph for now, while waiting for someone else – CHSRA or Amtrak – to get approval for higher speeds first? Amtrak has stated that they are working with the FRA to get approval to raise the top allowed speed for the Acela to 160 mph. This would mainly be a PR move for Amtrak for the present because 160 mph won’t make much difference in reducing trip time for the 35 miles of the NEC where the Acela can run at 150 mph. 160 vs 150 mph would, however, make a modest improvement for DX over the length of their proposed route.
Joey Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
The curves show in the plan and profile drawings show curves suitable for 150 mph at best (many, even far from the termini, are worse).
Peter Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
DX is an attempt to build the cheapest possible HSR project at the lowest risk and on the fastest timetable. As there are currently no regulations for trains going faster than 150 mph in the US, having DX attempt, on its own, to have the FRA promulgate regulations for greater than 150 mph, would cause an unnecessary delay.
Nathanael Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Clearly a correct description of the planning. Although I do think that’s a somewhat absurd way to do things, I also don’t think it will matter much; because Los Vegas is always going to be a terminus. It’s never going to be part of the passenger route from anywhere to anywhere, notwithstanding the theoretical possibility of a LA-Vegas-Salt Lake City route.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Very theoretical that Salt Lake City every has HSR to another big-ish city. It’s 400 miles away from Las Vegas with a lot of nothing in between. A bit over 400 to Reno and over 500 to Denver. …with a lot of nothing in between.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Not nothing. Mountains – lots and lots of them, in Denver’s case.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Even if it was flat as pool table there’s a whole lot of nothing between Salt Lake City and anyplace big enough to make building HSR worthwhile.
Salt Lake City is the 800 pound gorilla in the intermoutain West. It’s metro population is as big as ……Hartford’s….
Why are they limiting the top speed to 150mph. It is being build in the middle of the desert where no one is around. If you are going to spend billions of dollars why not build a 220 / 250mph train. This is what is going to get peoples attention. Who cares if it going to cost billions more. Many many people are going to ride it any way. Also if it going to connect to Palmdale why go slower than the one California is building ?
Joey Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
The best solution would be to build express HSR, but to avoid Victorville entirely (at least for now) and connect to the CAHSR system (with trackage rights) at Mojave. If you wanted to serve the IE market maybe you could build a spur at some point or just put a station in Barstow. This is of course barring an actual HSR line over the Cajón pass, which would also improve NorCal-SD travel times.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
How does “connect to CAHSR system, avoid Victorville, at least for now” work, when the Las Vegas corridor is likely to be completed years before the CAHSR system is?
Joey Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
I guess I’m speaking rather hypothetically here, though DX is looking like it’ll be built far behind the original schedule (then again, so is CAHSR). It would be a strong argument for building LA-Bakersfield first (something I believe would be a good idea anyway), though that’s not really an option now, so I guess I should stop trying to figure out what would be the most efficient use of resources.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 11:24 am
The question is the most efficient use of resources within the envelope of what is practicable. And those resources include things that are typically ignored in standard benefit/cost analysis, such as the existence of a project with an organizational structure with incentive and capacity to advance it toward completion.
Given the impact of the coming wave of demand destruction oil price shocks, which will tend to peak at successively higher levels as national economies hammer out how to function inside the prior peak, already ongoing work on Fresmo to Palmdale will ensure that completion of a north to south backbone is promoted by the shock. It helps lean against the tendency to make short term “emergency” decisions that interfere with the longer term process of sustainably adapting to the new environment.
thatbruce Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
@Joey: Regarding your original question, DX would still want to have a stop near the top of the Cajon Pass at least until there is HSR through service from the Inland Empire/Orange County (Ontario, San Bernardino, Riverside, Anaheim etc area) to the point the DX connects to the CAHSR system. Until then, people are still going to drive up the I-15, making the Cajon Pass a sea of Friday night taillights.
Joey Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Victorville is on the other side of the Cajón pass anyway. DX isn’t going to help that.
Useless Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
@ G furlow
220 mph tracks cost a fortune to build due to high minimum curvature/ballastless track requirement. 150 mph tracks are far cheaper to build.
Joey Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Slab isn’t mandatory. The LGV Est is mostly ballast IIRC. But there is a price difference, that’s true.
Clem Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Correct. The 357 mph record run was carried out on plain-Jane ballasted track. They did have problems with rocks going flying though…
Useless Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
@ Clem
And the track had to be repaired after two speed test runs.
Maintenance cost increases exponentially with increasing speed, and this is why all 220 mph class tracks are ballastless.
Joey Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Repairs generally have to be made when you run things far above the design speed.
all 220 mph class tracks are ballastless
Proof? Are there any examples that aren’t (a) German or (b) all viaduct?
Joey Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Scratch that, nothing in Germany exceeds 300 km/h. So that leaves the Chinese lines which are almost all viaduct.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Ballast is cheaper but has to be frequently re-arranged. It tends to form waves, with hollows and bumps, after a number of train passages. Rock projections can also damage the underside of trains not designed for it. This happened to an ICE train tested on Paris-Lyon. Alstom trains have a smoother underside limiting air displacements but this didn’t prevent rock projections at 357 mph.
Ballast absorbs noise and vibrations which bounce back to the wheels on slab tracks, increasing rolling stock wear. SNCF prefers ballast probably more for financial than technical reasons: it pays for rolling stock maintenance, but everything concerning tracks is RFF’s responsibility.
Joey Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Well, yes, slab is also known to have lower maintenance costs. I don’t know by how much though.
Joey Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
It’s not all open desert. There are some mountains along I-15 which are somewhat difficult to build through without tunneling. They could be avoided by more or less following the UP route (not really following it though) through the Mojave National Preserve, but that might not be a good idea environmentally speaking.
Paul Dyson Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Perhaps someone would care to calculate:
The time saving from going at max 220 vs 150 where permitted over this route.
The extra revenue, if any, from the shorter journey time.
The extra construction cost
The extra electricity consumption to go faster.
Then you can make the business case one way or the other.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 4:41 am
The problem is that, when conditions change, certain decisions may come back to haunt you.
When Paris-Lyon HSR was designed, in the seventies, track spacing was calculated to allow trains to cross each other safely at 300 km/h (187 mph). It seemed more than enough, then.
This original mistake is now causing a big loss of business: faster trains would allow more trips with no additional rolling stock or staff and significantly increase revenue.
Designing a rail line is an equation with many variables, some of which are just a big question mark.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 11:09 am
No matter which decision you make, some are almost certain to come back to haunt you.
It seems highly likely that their business model is best served by a smaller up-front capital cost. Given the substantially better chances in the current political climate for a privately backed line in the corridor, a design with a higher up-front capital cost that is a hypothetically superior design on a pure benefit/cost ratio basis, but is less commercially tenable, could well be comparing the infeasible to the feasible.
Indeed, a viable project which “ought to have been built to higher speed” could well lead to a better outcome when it comes time to build for the LA Basin / Phoenix corridor. And the LA/Phoenix corridor could prove to be the more strategic of the two obvious “eastern extensions” of the CAHSR network ~ since both are pointing toward the population gap represented by the Mountain West, and the largest population center on the opposite edge of the gap is Dallas / Fort Worth.
I used to make the Vegas trip from L.A. every year and all we every did at Barstow was gas, cigarettes and Mickey D’s. Come on, that’s not going to change very much for tourists. It won’t have a huge economic impact. On the other hand, having a stop at Barstow might change the town to a commuter burb so they are looking to grow their community widely beyond reasonable. Barstow is hell.
Who ends up owning the DX track? We haven’t had private rail ownership for passenger rail trackage for years, have we? That would be funky (and probably a bad idea), but is that what they are proposing?
BruceMcF Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
We’ve been running our intercity passenger rail on privately owned trackage continuously for over a century and a half. The San Jaoquin, Capital Corridor and Surfliner all run on privately owned trackage,
Since its only a loan and not a capital grant, the people borrowing the money would own the DX track, contingent on meeting their debt payments as they fall due. If they default, then its owned by their secured creditors ~ including the USG.
egk Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Um right. But isn’t all of that freight rail? My purely cursory impression was that once a corridor becomes passenger only it ends up being publicly owned – caltrain, railrunner in nm, etc. Which seems a good thing.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
You did not specify passenger-only rail. Since the only passenger-only rail that we have is conventional speed local transport and regional transport, there is of course no privately-owned passenger-only rail systems. In order to have a shot of making a profit on capital and operating expenses, the system has to be HSR, to cut the operating expenses per route mile and increase the revenue opportunity per route mile.
And even there its no sure thing, especially against competition as heavily subsidized as the mixed public/private motor vehicle transport system. The DX people reckon they have a special case on their hands.
thatbruce Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
@egk: Having a corridor be used for passenger operation most of the time doesn’t necessarily lead to public ownership of the line or passenger operation. In areas where the passenger operation is for commute purposes (eg, Caltrain) rather than excursions (eg, Grand Canyon Railway), local public transit agencies have a strong interest in keeping the passenger operation running, and are thus more likely to ‘rescue’ an ailing passenger operation.
On paper, the DesertXpress project makes sense. But when you look closer, Maglev clearly is better.
Who the hell is going to ride a train from Las Vegas to VICTORVILLE? Who the hell will drive from L.A. or Orange Counties to VICTORVILLE and then hop a train to Las Vegas? There is another alternative here…a maglev train that will travel directly between Anaheim and downtown Las Vegas, stopping at Ontario Int’l Airport, Victorville, Barstow, Primm and McCarran Airport. This train will take passengers where they need to go, and the Orange County segment could be used as a local train to take commuters between Anaheim and the underutilised Ontario Airport, thus relieving congestion at LAX and John Wayne airports. Not to mention the ecological aspects of a train that burns no fossil fuels, makes no emissions and makes very little noise, and the guideway is elevated (like a monorail) so Tommy the Desert Tortoise, Wile E Coyote and the Roadrunner can roam freely in the Mojave without being hit by a train.
Nathanael Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Actually, I would expect your average gambler visiting Vegas to drive from LA or the eastern suburbs to Victorville and then take the train. It’s much more attractive than keeling over from exhaustion and crashing on the highway partway to Vegas.
JDRCRASHER Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
How do you know?
I thought this was supposed to be privately funded? Why is there $5 in public funding all of a sudden?
I think it’s OK to build DesertXpress as long as it’s not subsidized by the taxpayers.
Nathanael Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
They’re looking for railroad loan money. Money the federal government will loan to pretty much any railroad, freight or passenger, based on merit and ability to pay back the loan.
JDRCRASHER Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
If your willing to give a loan to DesertXpress, you might as well take it a step further and support the Maglev project.
synonymouse Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
I’m afraid the Fukushima and tsunami disaster will put maglev on the back burner for the time being. It looks to me that the damage estimates are greatly understated and Japan will need all the money it can lays hands on for reconstruction.
I can’t see Wynn or Adelson ponying up a penny for DesertXpress. They have been around long enough to know Sin City waxes and wanes. And that was before Indian gaming.