March CHSRA Board Meeting
Today the California High Speed Rail Authority is holding its monthly meeting in Los Angeles, in the board room of the Metro headquarters right next to Union Station. The agenda is here and a livestream of the meeting can be viewed here. Dana Gabbard of Streetsblog LA has a good overview of the meeting, including a discussion of Metro’s recently departed HSR liaison, Alex Clifford, who went to Chicago to take over Metra.
On the agenda are discussions of several Alternatives Analyses – LA to Palmdale, LA to Anaheim, and LA to San Diego. You can find links to those reports here. Some items of note:
• LA to Palmdale: The Authority is now discussing a bored tunnel under Elysian Park, avoiding the Rio de Los Angeles Park area entirely by going on the opposite side of the LA River. A station at the Burbank Metrolink stop and at Pacoima Wash are not recommended to be carried forward.
• LA to Anaheim: No draft EIR is expected until fall 2012. 2011 will be spent meeting with the communities along the route. There is a proposal to trench the tracks near the Buena Park Metrolink station.
• LA to San Diego: Alignments along I-10 and SR 60 are proposed to be carried forward, at least as far as the 605 freeway. East of there, alignments along Holt Avenue and 1st/State streets will be considered for reaching Ontario Airport. From there, two I-215 alignments (one via San Bernardino and one via I-10, bypassing San Bernardino but potentially having a station in the Colton area) and an I-15 alignment will be carried forward. From there to San Diego, two alternatives – LOSSAN (via Rose Canyon or a tunnel under University City) and SR 163/I-8 – are proposed to bring the tracks from the I-15 corridor to the San Diego airport.
I don’t think any of these are particularly noteworthy developments, except maybe the Elysian Park tunnel concept.
Anyone here going to be at the meeting? It starts at 9AM.
That’s child’s play compared to the anticipated decision in Florida today. It’s the Tea Party vs errrrrryone! Who will prevail?! Here’s the tale of the tape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3QNRbEHtnE
Victor Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:10 am
Bah, They just don’t like any taxes, As they want services for Free and that just isn’t possible, As there are NO Free Rides to be had.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 5:49 pm
I just got around to looking at Spokker’s linked clip. How did the residents of Florida elect this man? Over and over, he says “I’m not convinced the public is off the hook.” Now, even I repeat myself in different places at times, but this guy does so for multiple times in the same day, and in front of cameras! It’s as if this is a mantra of his. And I won’t claim surely that what I am seeing is real or if I am seeing something that isn’t really there–but why do I get the impression he has an empty head as he brushes off the reporters with that “mantra?” This is on top of all the other things he has chosen to ignore, such as the concerns about peak oil and the recent run-up in gas prices, the need for alternative transportation, and the very sweet deal he has on this project, courtesy of the Feds and other outsiders.
Again, how did he get into office? I say, I could do better than that in speech and view, and likely would sound better, too!
Jerry Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 1:42 am
You probably could do better.
But he financed his campaign for governor with more than $70 million dollars of his own money. He made his money by taking over “non-profit” hospitals and making them “for profit.” All while defrauding the federal government, for which his company paid a record fine of $1.7 billion dollars. That’s $1.7 BILLION dollars. Of course that’s chump change to companies like that.
Scott’s resignation from the company he started came nine days after the FBI raided his company’s 33 Columbia/HCA hospitals and offices in six states. He, of course, was never charged or fined.
I’m interested in seeing where the SR-163/I-8 alignment goes. Also, does that mean they’ve given up on terminating at Santa Fe Depot? I do hope that if they end up terminating HSR at the airport, that the Blue and Gold lines are extended to the airport – avoiding a transfer for east county and south bay users.
Donk Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 9:30 am
They are basically planning for the airport to be the new San Diego Intergalactic station. They already have plans to redo the airport so that the passenger entry is on that east side by the tracks. So HSR, Coaster, Amtrak, and the trolley would then all stop at the airport. The obvious move then would be to have both the Orange and Blue lines terminate (or go thru) the airport.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:25 am
That seems rather reasonable actually, especially if there’s a significant cost differential between an airport station and going to downtown.
Bobierto Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:02 am
I suspect there WOULD be a large cost in going that last mile or so, from the airport to Santa Fe depot. The area around the train station is already congested, Santa Fe is only 2 or 3 stops from where the airport station would be (depending on whether it ends up at Middletown or Washington St). SDMTS is upgrading all the stations on the Blue Line to accommodate their new rolling stock, which is currently used only on the green line. So that would allow them to move the green and blue line termini to the airport. Gold line? Is that the midcoast corridor? That can terminate at airport too. Orange line, not at the moment as the stations won’t have been upgraded.
I would be good money that the ROW will end up being down the 15 to Qualcomm, they put a stop there, and across the 8 to the airport. The UTC/Rose Canyon route makes more sense to me, but the tunnel will be expensive, and for reasons I don’t understand the La Jollans don’t want a train in their ‘hood. Too bad because the Rose Canyon right of way would mean track improvements for Amtrak, possibly electrification for Coaster.
Zach San Diego Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 1:08 pm
I think Matthew meant orange line and not gold line. Donk is right about the airport plans to eventually build terminals on the east side. The thing everyone is still forgetting is that even though all the trolley lines will go to the airport the bus lines will never continue on to the airport requiring everyone to transfer to the trolley (probably downtown and close to Santa Fe Station) and thus making the trip to the airport station that much more of a hassle and time consuming, transferring to the trolley downtown then riding to the station at the airport will add at a minimum 15 min (at least 5-15 for the transfer and another 5-10 for the ride from downtown to the airport station. Also, currently the bulk of the trolley passengers disembark in the downtown area and very few continue on to old town, thus reducing the efficiency of all the lines continuing on to the Airport station, especially during off peak hours.
I do think the Temecula/Escondido/UTC/Downtown would be a good commuter line, although that would never happen without high speed rail.
Bobierto Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Hey first of all I wrote before looking closely at the documents, i didn’t understand that they eliminated the I-15 to Qualcomm option.
Zach, curious what you meant “the bus lines will never continue on to the airport”? Cities often realign their bus routes – look at Portland and how the bus routes have changed over the years as the MAX light rail system has grown. I haven’t read anything about this but I imagine a lot of bus lines that currently end downtown might end at the airport. Also – right now Old Town is the hub for 10 bus lines connecting to 2 trolley lines and Amtrak. It’s easy to imagine that that hub will be moved to the airport when the time comes, don’t you think?
Zach San Diego Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 3:07 pm
I guess what I meant was that I don’t think they will change the bus lines to continue to the airport I didn’t mean that it is impossible to do that. They can very easily extend them to the airport I am just assuming that they won’t because of budget constraints; I would think they will expect everyone to transfer to the trolley (which really isn’t unreasonable especially if all lines go there). Good point about old town. One thing about the airport station is that it does have better freeway/car/taxi access than Santa Fe station.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 6:28 am
Extended buses to the airport will not happen in any substantive manner. There will not be sufficient demand AND the cost would be prohibitive.
Basically, we each need to understand that there will be nominal HSR to Plane demand. And, an HSR stop at the airport will not serve the commute market.
Further, Amtrak will likely remain in service after HSR is implemented, and, even though it is slower, it will be more direct than HSR…. from Los Angeles. Amtrak will stop downtown at Santa Fe Depot. The Coaster will too. That is where people want to go.
The problem is thatSan Diego leaders have stunted understanding of transportation and future needs. Theyaremore concerned about how pretty the city looks, rather than how it functions. CHSRA is bowing to that.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 8:38 am
When you compare the number of commuters whose destinations are within walking distance of Santa Fe Depot with the number of commuters whose destinations are within walking distance of a trolley stop (especially since the extension to UTC will be completed – a huge destination for out-of-county commuters).
Further, the number of commuters to San Diego from Riverside County – for whom HSR provides a tremendous benefit relative to auto commuting, and for whom there is no public transit option, is double the number of commuters from LA and/or Orange County (the latter lacking a direct HSR connection to San Diego at all). See http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sandicommute.pdf
I realize it’s not an either-or proposition, but I can accept that the benefit might not be worth the cost.
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 9:41 am
The thing is, the airport’s a crazy terminus for HSR since there will be nobody transferring from San Diego Airport to HSR — it’s not like people fly into San Diego in order to go to LA!
If you give up on getting HSR to the Santa Fe Depot, terminate it at Old Town, which is a reasonable hub in and of itself.
Matthew Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 3:17 pm
I listened to the meeting and they blamed the hazardous cleanup on the Qualcomm Stadium property and the oil/gas fields adjacent to the approach. They also said that a Qualcomm stop would preclude going downtown because of the 805 prevents it from going through Mission Valley.
John McNary Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 6:46 pm
A normal city would do that. Not San Diego. When the Coaster was opened between downtown and Old Town, the MTS ended direct bus service from La Jolla, PB, and MB to Horton Plaza. Smart move: increase passenger counts on the new Trolley instead of serving people. Now, the 20-minute bus ride from Belmont Park to Horton Plaza of yesteryear is a two-fare, 45-55 minute exercise in stupidity.
My guess is MTS will not only steadfastly keep its fancy bus terminus in Old Town, but will probably some find some sort of third transfer to help pay for the Intergalactic Bus Stop. Maybe a mandatory bus ride from the Intergalactic Trolley Stop to the Intergalactic Loading Zone.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Are you talking about the elimination of bus 34? That didn’t happen until the coaster and trolleys had already been operating for years!
John McNary Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 9:13 am
I still call it Route R!
The point is still valid. Every time a bus from Mission Beach pulls into Old Town, virtually the entire busload gets off and walks to (and then waits for) the next southbound train. What used to be a 10-minute ride down Midway and Pacific Hwy now turns into a 20-30 minute transfer and trolley ride.
Matthew Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Yeah, I misspeak and call the Orange line the Gold line a lot. :)
I think one of the best things about an Airport Nexus terminus is that it can leverage the same amenities available to the airport:
For the car-based:
* For locals departing: Parking, shuttle connections to other partking
* For visitors arriving: Car Rentals
And for the transit oriented, the Coaster and trolleys spider out to all of the metro area. I really hope that at least one of the C-street downtown lines continues to the airport nexus, and ideally I hope all 4 reach the Airport — but even if plans continue as developed, the Green Line will take visitors to the major hotel destinations downtown and in mission valley (it is slated to be extended to Imperial and 12th along the Bayside). I wonder if the mid-coast extension will follow the same route to Imperial and 12th?
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 9:42 am
Car rentals are the one and only logical reason for a terminus at the airport. I respect that reason.
John McNary Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 6:40 pm
The only thing missing at the the Intergalactic terminal is a crossplatform transfer to the Mission Beach Coaster.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:36 pm
If the Coaster/Amtrak line already runs to the airport, then why not just have HSR share tracks in order to reach downtown? For that last mile, HSR trains will be running slowly anyway.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Then the shiny HSR train would get Amtrak and Coaster cooties all over it.
PeakVT Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Has the FRA relented on its ridiculous crash requirements? Without a waver, doing the obvious isn’t even possible.
thatbruce Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 11:34 am
South of the San Diego SF station, the (FRA) Surfliner and (non-FRA) Trolley share a yard
(oh noes, the FRA trains have to sleep underneath overhead wires) , and both the Trolley and (FRA) freight share tracks down to the border, temporally separated.
Waivers already exist in that area, and by the time HSR gets to that point, there should be enough experience with passenger track sharing operations as per Metrolink and Caltrain to allow for Coaster/Surfliner/HSR to share a few miles of track.
James Fujita Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 1:47 am
I like San Diego’s Santa Fe Station, but it’s not the same as Los Angeles Union Station.
For one thing, Los Angeles has way more tracks than San Diego. For another thing, Union Station is already designed quite well for Cal HSR with its pedestrian tunnel under the tracks providing controlled access to the platforms.
It is a very narrow last mile from the airport to downtown San Diego with little to no room for expansion. There’s barely enough room for Amtrak, the Coaster and the San Diego Trolley as it is.
I just don’t see it as worth the effort to send HSR down to the undoubtedly lovely and historic but completely wrong for HSR station, when the Trolley could easily be extended to the airport.
Joey Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 7:26 am
Because there are things which people might actually be able to walk to near SFD. There’s NOTHING near the airport. Plus every transfer you add will take a good chunk of your riders away.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 8:41 am
I don’t think a single transfer will have that big of an effect on ridership, and practically every major destination will be within one transfer.
Bobierto Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 9:41 am
Santa Fe Depot is at the extreme end of downtown San Diego. Many office buildings are nearby, many others not. When I worked downtown (I wish I still did – now I work within walking distance of the cancelled UTC station …) my office was a 20 minute walk from the station – acceptable for some commuters, but not all, and probably not acceptable to business visitors, who would want to transfer to the trolley or a cab. Likewise the major convention center hotels are between 15 and 30 minutes walk from Santa Fe Depot – daunting for an out of towner with bags. They too will transfer to a cab or trolley – at which point, it’s not so important if they alight at the airport, 2 miles and 3 trolley stops to the north.
Wad Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 2:17 am
The train right of way skirts the east edge of the airport. It’s next to where all of Lindbergh Field’s car rental lots are.
Only the Trolley stops here, but it isn’t convenient for airport use.
Donk Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 3:34 am
Here is a map showing the general concept for the new airport design. Passenger terminal moved to east side, subway going under runways to gates, freeway/trolley/rail access to new eastern passenger terminal.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/feb/09/1n9airport211521-plan-would-shift-airport-operatio/?uniontrib
Bobierto Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Yes as Donk points out, the point of the HSR ending at the airport is it help justify reconfiguring the whole airport. I think we all agree that there won’t be much interchange between HSR and air travellers, as San Diego is a destination, not a hub. But who knows? A nonstop flight from London to San Diego starts running in June. I could imagine European visitors beginning or ending a California vacation in San Diego, and then using HSR for points in between.
Anyway let’s consider ourselves lucky that Mayor Sanders’s preference, the Qualcomm terminus, is off the table. I think the optimal route would continue south on the 15 past Qualcomm, and then either continue across downtown to a new terminus near the ballpark and convention center – perhaps on the site where the new footbal stadium is proposed. Or, south on the 15, west on the 94 and then tunneling under Broadway to Santa Fe Depot, enabling a much-needed C Street (or more likely, Broadway) tunnel for that congested stretch of the trolley. No one asked me, though.
Wad Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Those plans are very good, Bob.
A new HSR terminal would be needed. While I love Santa Fe Depot as a personal, well-scaled station, it’s already too small for the services it handles now.
A terminal on the southeast edge of downtown would have been well-suited for heavy ridership. The area is already built with heavy traffic in mind (Petco Park and the Convention Center practically next door to each other, and 12th/Imperial serves as the Trolley transfer center) and would place it as an important “tent pole” station. It’s the next best thing to being directly at the heart of downtown San Diego.
The airport station is acceptable, though. San Diego’s airport is practically downtown anyway, and it’s only about 3-10 minutes to the heart of downtown by the Trolley.
jimsf Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
I agree that petco / convention would be a better location I hope they can eventually run beyond the airport to downtown and petco. SD is a big convention town, the gaslamp is over that way too, and a lot of hotels and new high density residential.
Daniel Krause Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 9:52 am
One thing to keep in mind is that railway stations are part of an urban fabric and serve as a focal point of city centers. By relegating all HSR trains just outside of downtown and at a site with no development potential (beyond airport stuff and parking lots), SD will be missing out on all the dynamism that train stations and HSR bring to city centers. I also becoming concerned that the Coaster may be terminated at the airport. This would be absolute lunacy, but I can see some arguing for that.
I like the idea of running HSR trains to Santa Fe a little slower intially to the existing station. I wonder if modifications could be made to add some capacity at Santa Fe. Then in the future, when more money is avaiable, a subway/elevated option could be considered to further increase capacity at the downtown station. I am sure there are ways to resolve the environmental conceners expressed in the AA. Anyhow, I wish they would continue to study the downtown site. At a minimum, the airport station should be designed in a way that allows the train to go to downtown in the future (i.e. if they want a subway under the current tracks, then the height of the station at the airport should accomodate, etc).
Bobierto Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
I think the track sharing is a great idea and may be the only way the trains go all the way downtown. But – do you really consider Santa Fe to be a focal point of San Diego’s civic center?
I thought this was funny.
http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/news/ci_17525897
“Councilman Jerry Bean said the concept of a high speed rail is not feasible in the current economy.
“The high speed rail project is another one of the ideas that makes no sense at all,” he said. “However, the voters in California approved these bonds 3 years ago, which is just amazing for a state that has no money The basic idea of a high-speed rail will be an economic disaster and probably a drag on taxpayers if it’s ever completed.”"
He’s in Redlands. Car country. Not exactly a happening place with or without high speed rail. Not surprised he does not support the idea, or does he?
“However, Bean voted to support the resolution, saying it is not an endorsement of the rail project, but rather a showing of support to bring it to the area if it is to be built.
“All it does is try to encourage a line through our area if it does exist,” Bean said. “We’d rather have it here than somewhere else if the state is paying for it, I guess.”"
It will be an economic disaster, but if that economic disaster happens to be built, we want that disaster in Redlands! It doesn’t make much sense to want an economic disaster to come to your town.
I have a hunch the guy is not being completely honest. He’s sort of playing both sides here.
Matt Korner Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 5:58 am
Virtually everyone in Redlands, including major players like ESRI founder Jack Dangermond, are in full support of the light-rail system that will connect the University of Redlands and downtown Redlands with the San Bernardino Intermodal Transit Center and Transit Village. So, I think this particular council person is just placating his Republican constituency.
I don’t understand how anyone can say that Redlands isn’t a happening place, though, since it has a very walkable downtown, a great bicycle culture, and a general plan that encourages compact mixed-use development.
It’s nice to hear the board members voice their discontent towards Senator Alan Lowenthal and his tactics.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 12:05 pm
What were they saying? I haven’t been able to watch. Nor have I had a chance yet to write about Lowenthal’s proposal. I can’t wait until he is termed out next year.
Victor Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Then I guess in a Year We can say Good Riddance… As I think He might be in the wrong party…
StevieB Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 5:08 pm
It is amusing how almost every news article describes him as Senator Alan Lowenthal, high speed rail supporter.
Victor Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Him, A supporter? A Jock Strap is a Supporter too, It doesn’t support HSR anymore than a Neanderthal wearing one does.
Peter Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Both him and Simitian.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 5:06 pm
I actually like Simitian. I can understand where he is coming from. He is not opposed to high speed rail. I’ve not always liked his word choices but I’ve never seen him as a problem for the project. He will be termed out next year as well, and with redistricting, it will be quite the scramble to claim his seat. People are already lining up.
Victor Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:53 pm
I think the Opposition is getting a bit Desperate, Being Termed out and having Redistricting happen too, My, My, What ever will they do? It’s like the Magnetic Polar shift is sapping them of their strength, It must be like Kryptonite or something. LOL
There were previously three tunnel alignments under the Los Angeles River. Two wound around the state park in the cornfield and one was cut and cover through it. The two new tunnel alignments have a steeper slope coming out of Union Station so that they can tunnel under the park at a minimum of 30 feet. The tunnels pass under the river as before but now on the opposite side tunnel under Rio De Los Angeles state park and the adjacent high school site instead of passing along side at grade or in a trench making for a longer tunnel. The longer tunnel was in response to objections by the state park and high school and in addition Metrolink and UPRR said they could not share a trench with HSR.
Victor Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 12:16 pm
I’m sure they’ll find some way of making a place for the tracks there, As You can’t please everyone.
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Having ridden through there recently, I will say it’s already pretty crowded along the LA river just north of Union Station. Metrolink and UPRR *should* share a trench with HSR in the San Fernando Valley, but such a trench would be getting awfully crowded in the LA River section.
Wow, the uStream is annoying – the ads pop up every minute, it seems!
Matthew Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Ack I gotta use my full name – sorry if anyone gets our personas confused!
* switching to Matthew F. *
High-speed rail draws key ally reports that Kent Conrad (D, ND) has come out in favor of HSR. Since he will be involved in budget negotiations with the Republican Congress, this is a big deal for HSR.
Guess we will know by 9 am EST if Florida will keep the HSR money or not, pending the outcome of the Florida Supreme Court ruling.
Brandi Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:18 pm
From what I read though it sounds as if the state senators lawyer made poor arguments compared to Scott’s lawyer. I guess transportation projects face a dangerous future. When they can just be shut down in one day when a newly elected governor doesn’t want the money. We better get building in California soon. As disappointed as I am that the only high speed rail project capable of opening in the next five years is dead, at least there is a silver lining in that other states will get the money. Still such a shame.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:17 pm
No matter the outcome it will be front page headline news tomorrow.. sadly if Scott wins the news media will portray it as a death sentence to high-speed rail nevermind the fact that California ,The Pacific Northwest and Northeast states plus Illinois want high-speed rail. If anyone was thinking that these three tea bagger governors would even consider taking this money is sadly mistaken. They have their marching orders and hopefully the news media will see this and also present that in their stories and articles
Spokker Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:27 pm
The media is portraying some of what is going on in Florida as the Tea Party governor vs. Republicans/Democrats. There was a bi-partisan blowback to his plan to reject the high speed rail money. If it turns out that he can indeed unilaterally cancel the project, I think there will be a lot of Republicans and Democrats angry at him. Even Mica thought it was a dumb move not to at least wait for more details.
Victor Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Yeah, Really Dumb, But hey If He’s dumb enough to do that, then What’s next?
California will accept all the money It can lay Its hands on of course, If people in Florida want to elect People who make Dumb decisions, Who am I to object? They got what they wanted, Maybe next time they’ll elect someone else instead of Dumbo.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:59 pm
The sad thing is that is that dumbo only one by 100,000 votes or so.. IF just a few more people would’ve bothered to show we would not even be talking about this as the Democratic candidate was for all high-speed rail
Brandi Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 8:31 am
I agree now people will begin to understand what electing teabaggers really does. They don’t care about jobs. They only care about helping out people who provided them kickbacks. As John Blamer said if people lose jobs “so be it”.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Well good thing at least for high-speed rail is their little show is now over after this.. the 3 Teabaggers have done their duty and now people that really want high-speed rail will be in the news soon with their construction and hopefully getting additional funding through Congress.. I’m hoping that California high-speed rail to some really great bids so it shows up in the news.
RubberToe Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
I like this thought. In less than 2 years, all the unemployed construction workers in Florida will be sitting at home watching the ground breaking on the California HSR system. A couple months later they will be seeing footage of thousands of workers build the system. You are right in that now that the 3 states have given back their money, they have essentially “blown their wad” politically speaking since now HSR is a dead issue in their states. Maybe they can start pulling up the freight tracks if their theology requires it :-P
Victor Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 8:23 am
I think Scott just did, CNN reports the Florida Supreme Court said He has ruled and I quote:
Florida high-speed train project derailed; Court rules for Scott
Maybe California can get some or all of the $2.4 Billion from Florida and what will Scott get? Rebuked If He’s lucky, Impeached if He’s not.
Victor Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 8:37 am
Heck there’s a Facebook page devoted to the subject of Impeaching the Reject, Er Governor Scott:
IMPEACH RICK SCOTT(Facebook)
Plus a Petition site too, So far at this moment their up to 360…
IMPEACH RICK SCOTT(Petition)
Will Scott be Impeached? Who knows? More importantly, When can the DOT transfer all of that unwanted money to the State of California where the money will be put to good use and be very welcome…
This could be interesting to watch the fur fly.
Alan F Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Impeachment with a Republican controlled state legislature is extremely unlikely, even if Scott has pissed many of the Republican legislatures off. My understanding is that Florida currently has no recall provisions, so Florida is likely to be stuck with Gov. Scott for 4 years. But based on his first several months in office, he will be a 1 term governor.
As for the funds, don’t count on all or even most of the funding going to California HSR. CA HSR will get a good sized chunk, but there are other states and projects that could make good use of the money. LaHood and the FRA have a tricky political balancing act to do in figuring out where to redirect the funds. Question is how quickly will they move. Maybe an announcement by as soon as early next week?
Victor Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Yeah, We will just have to wait.
YesonHSR Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 8:48 am
We are going to get a nice chunk..not all as Lahood said others states want HSR unlike the teabag puppet Govs
Brandi Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 7:56 am
Well the florida project has been killed.
http://transportationnation.org/2011/03/04/breaking-no-high-speed-rail-for-florida-scott-tells-dot-no-and-the-court-upholds-his-authority-to-do-so/
Hopefully we can get this money redirected quickly so it can be used by the ARRA mandated deadline.
jim Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 8:45 am
I wonder if the sudden burst of value engineering that CHSRA has been displaying has something to do with getting the Florida money redirected to California. Give us more money so we can extend our planned line a few miles isn’t a compelling argument. Give us more money so we can reach another city is.
Eric M Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 8:52 am
I’m guessing Merced is the next stop
Victor Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Nah, More like Bakersfield, If I’m wrong, I’m ok with that, As long as some of that Florida money comes here, The more the better. :D
Bobierto Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 9:51 am
I agree. First order is to get as many miles built in the Central Valley built as possible. Building will be slower and more expensive at the two ends so get the spine built first, making completion of the entire system closer to certainty.
synonymouse Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 11:01 am
Yeah, triple tracking the Santa Fe in the remotest corner of the San Joaquin Valley is definitely the best and highest use of taxpayer money.
Meantime the SF Chron, the unofficial patronage machine mouthpiece, is running many letters kvetching over the decline of Caltrain. One letter calls for terminating the hsr at San Jose and spending hsr funds on saving and upgrading Caltrain alone. I suspect there a lot of the public in the Peninsula who think this way.
Peter Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 11:34 am
Why certainly, connecting the fifth and seventh largest cities in the state is the “middle of nowhere”. Once again you demonstrate how you really don’t think people in the CV matter.
synonymouse Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Borden to Corcoran?
Peter Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 11:52 am
I know you’re not dumb enough to think I was talking about Borden or Corcoran.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
You give him more credit than I think he deserves…
StevieB Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
That would require a state proposition. Who is willing to pay for getting it on the ballot?
I’m guessing the alignment along Holt Blvd. will be the train tracks parallel to Valley Blvd. east of the 605 and Holt Blvd. east of the 71. Was there an illustration of that alignment at the CHSRA meeting?
If HSR is to cross through Pomona, it would be great if a station was located in Downtown Pomona and not Industry as was proposed earlier. By locating a station in Downtown Pomona, it would have the potential of unleashing Downtown’s full potential – already, it’s home to several concert venues and well attended Art Walks. Downtown Pomona is certaintly greatly more walkable and attractive than City of Industry is with all its industrial warehouses. There’s also a medical university in Downtown Pomona and Cal Poly is just 4 miles away – the downtown station could potentially be used by those college students (assuming ticket prices will be affordable enough).
Off topic, but some great claim chowder from some long-gone rail doubters
More prescient observations here
joe Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:26 pm
usa today
Airfares likely to keep rising with price of oil
Fliers are facing swings in ticket prices of $10 to $60 or more almost weekly as airlines try to deal with the soaring cost of oil.
Cumulative increases could backfire on the airlines, some analysts warn.
“At some point, the passengers will bolt and decide not to pay the fare and look at a different mode of transportation,” says Basili Alukos, airline analyst for Morningstar, the investment research firm.
“At the end of the day,” Alukos says, “it’s transportation, so there are other modes … whether it’s rail or car or bus.”
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2011/03/Airfares-likely-to-keep-rising-with-price-of-oil-/44479648/1
Victor Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:55 pm
And Big Oil wants to prevent any shift at any cost…
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 9:47 pm
And oil isn’t likely to go down and stay down ever again, barring some sort of collapse of the chinese and indian economies, and even then, they’ll recover.
Sadly, I think any chance of an increased gas tax is gone. Even if they get one enacted, it will be too little too late. Those 50% subsidized numbers Robert posted the other day will look like bargains in a few years.
It’s toll roads or nothing my friends, and that means huge ridership for these rail projects. It’s going to be an interesting decade.
Alan F Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Amtrak is going to easily break their ridership record which was set last year. With a big price jump for the airlines, the Northeast Corridor at least will see a marked increase in ridership although the Acelas are already frequently sold out for the peak late afternoon trips. Amtrak asked for funding in their FY2012 capital budget submission to buy 40 additional Acela coach cars to add capacity to the existing 20 Acela trainsets and extend the service bays to handle 10 car sets. But those won’t arrive before 2014, figuring Amtrak may go ahead and place an order even if Congress squeezes them on the capital funding.
California did get $100 million to order new rolling stock for the current California Amtrak fleet. My advice would for them to hurry up and get started on the always prolonged RFP and bid process.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Fortunately in the Northeast we have the Regionals which are almost as fast as the Acelas and lower priced. They’ve snuck a few into the schedule in the late afternoon.
Alan F Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
I’ve taken both the Northeast Regionals and the Acelas between DC and NYC on a regular basis so I am familiar with them. The ridership growth for the NE Regionals has been pretty flat in recent months compared to the Acelas. But, now with free WiFi getting added to the Regional cars over the rest of the year and with the Acelas getting crowded, I figure ridership on the Regionals will be going up in the coming months as air fares and driving costs go up.
Fortunately for Amtrak, the stimulus money is putting 60 laid up Amfleet cars back into service (with 20 of those from cafe cars being converted to coach cars), so that will help provide additional capacity on the NEC and related eastern corridors over the next few years while Amtrak ties to line up capital funding to order new rolling stock.
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Last year’s ridership record was set with declining numbers in the Northeast, while pretty much everything else was filling up.
This year, the Northeast will start filling up again, but the rest of the country is going to REALLY fill up.
The last train I rode, Lake Shore Limited from Chicago to Syracuse, NY, had every single coach seat sold out, and it hauls six coaches — and this was in late Februrary. There were a few sleeper compartments free, but not many. The train before that on my West Coast trip, the California Zephyr, had its sleepers sold out east of Denver, and coaches close to sold out.
Given that new rolling stock is going to be slow to arrive, expect prices to go up outside the Northeast. (In the Northeast they’re already shockingly high, which just goes to show how high demand is.)
I hadn’t realized that so many alignment alternative had been eliminated for the LA to SD route. I’m not happy about the Inland Empire stations. El Monte Transit Center would be good, but West Covina, Pomona/Holt, Colton, and March AFB are all away from destinations. I’m disappointed that downtown Riverside and UC Riverside were eliminated as options. At least the Ontario airport station will be next to the terminal.
(LA to SD Alignment: http://thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/LA-SD-along-10.jpg)
Terminating the trains at the Airport in San Diego seems a poor choice. All the buses and light rail trains run downtown, and visitors are heading to hotels and the convention center downtown. Furthermore, San Diego has been planning to move the airport for years. The HSR trains should share tracks with Amtrak and Coaster for the last 2 miles if needed to get downtown.
I also agree than an extension to the border next to Tijuana airport would be great. That site is big enough for airport expansion, and could make it possible for San Diego to avoid building a new airport, if it had a quick connection to San Diego via the train. The station could be on the US side of the border, and there are some plans to build a new US only terminal so that people could fly from the US to this airport without going thru Mexican or US immigration.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Regarding the San Diego portion: The city has all but given up on moving the airport, and has shifted to a “make the most of what we’ve got” strategy. The plan that seems to have the most momentum behind it:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/feb/09/1n9airport211521-plan-would-shift-airport-operatio/?uniontrib
Move check-in, security, car rental, parking to the north side, where you will have direct access to Trolleys, Coaster, and with direct freeway ramps to parking and drop-off.
In that context, putting the HSR stop makes sense. The green line will take passengers directly to Mission Valley / SDSU. The Mid Coast line will shuttle passengers to UTC, USD, and UCSD. The two do double duty (and hence double frequency) to carry passengers to the tourist-hotel-heavy Bayside corridor and convention center. And if the blue-line and orange-line trolleys connect to the airport (which I hope for but haven’t seen any indication of, one way or the other), that pretty much brings direct access to the entire county (and LOTS of trains connecting to downtown buses).
That fits in with the general long term transit plan, as I understand it (as a spectator and user, not involved in any way): Trolleys to move people long distances, busses to get people to and from the trolleys.
Matthew B Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 6:11 am
I’m yet another Matthew, sorry for the confusion. Anyway, I think it would make a lot of sense to reorient operations at Lindbergh to the north, and additionally extend the trolley from San Ysidro to the US entrance to the Tijuana airport. I’m not sure how difficult it would be to build along the hills along the border between San Ysidro and the airport, but between the two projects, San Diego would be very well positioned for access to expanded air service for years to come.
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Look at those costs, $5b to $12.3b for all three phases. Government grants and state and local funds. So much for Air travel paying for itself.
Alan F Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
What percentage of the flights and passengers from the San Diego airport are to the LA airports, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, Fresno, and for good measure, Las Vegas and Phoenix AZ? If the CA HSR system is built and extensions to Las Vegas and then Phoenix follow, that will take away much of the air traffic to those cities, especially once probable fuel costs in 10-15-20 years are taken into account. If the HSR system takes away a lot of those flights, how much of the expansion will really be needed in the long run?
The $5 to $12 billion price tag for improving a single airport does help put the $42 billion price tag for the CA HSR system into perspective.
Ben Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Alan:
I don’t know offhand but short-haul flights between San Diego and the Bay Area and between San Diego and PHX/LV is significant. Per person, there is 2-3 times the number of flights in the West Coast mega-region compared to the East Coast mega-region.
An Analysis of Air Traffic Patterns in the Intermountain West
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/1008_air_travel_tomer_puentes/1008_air_travel_imw_report.pdf
Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions
http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/acrp_rpt_031.pdf
Bobierto Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Joseph, Matthew is right, the city has thrown in the towel on moving the airport. It could be that they will find another place for air freight, but passenger service is staying at Lindbergh. There is plenty of space down by the border, and in fact you can see the planes on the runway of Tijuana airport from the 905 Highway in San Diego, but security concerns mean they won’t build a US airport that close to the border. It WOULD be great to run the train all the way to the border, and there is talk of running a footbridge over to TJ airport, but Lindbergh field is unlikely to relocate down there.
As for “all the buses and light rail running downtown,” please understand that it’s only 2 miles from the airport to Santa Fe depot. Three trolley stops. “The visitors are heading downtown”? Well, some, but not all. Plenty of convention hotels downtown, but tourists are just as likely to stay elsewhere, and for them, they won’t care where their journey begins, as long as there is good transit to get them where they are going. Track sharing makes sense, if it’s feasible, but if not, Lindbergh is perfectly acceptable as a terminus. And this from an east coast, transit oriented person … who recognizes the realities of San Diego urban life. I live in one of the densest residential areas in the city, and a station at Lindbergh is just as accessible to me as downtown. In fact I could walk to either in about the same amount of time.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:39 pm
The terminal should be walkable. It should not require hopping on the trolley to get to someplace interesting, unless absolutely necessary. Shin-Osaka was necessary. Shin-San Diego isn’t.
Dan S. Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 12:06 am
Agreed. How many times have I seen people speaking for CHSRA lauding the benefits of a downtown station? City center to city center and all that. The only benefit I see to the system of stopping at the airport is cost savings. Now all we can hope for is that HSR is such a success in CA that project backers will rally in SD and pony up for an extension downtown, where it should go in the first place. Alas.
BTW, here’s the comments from the newly posted LA-SD Prelim AA Report:
James Fujita Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 1:52 am
The airport is practically downtown anyways.
Have you seen jets on their approach to Lindbergh? They practically fly between buildings. It reminds me of the old Hong Kong airport, which was another “interesting” nail-biter airport.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Should be walkable to _what_, though? Let’s face it, the majority of visitors traveling between Santa Fe Depot and the Convention Center hotels will likely hop on the trolley for a couple stops.
James Fujita Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 1:58 am
Comic-Con (convention center), Sea World, Balboa Park, Old Town San Diego…. a LOT of attractions in San Diego are not near the Amtrak station. Santa Fe Station IS walking distance of Anthony’s Grotto…
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 9:54 am
If Downtown is ruled out, Old Town Station would actually be a better terminus than the Airport. Apart from Old Town itself, it provides better routes to Sea World, and it’s next to a long string of hotels.
Balboa Park is far from any Trolley station; it needs its own route.
Daniel Krause Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 9:16 am
I walk all the time to downtown SD when I take the train to the Santa Fe station. I am baffled why SD is not interested in at least continuing to study a downtown station. And yes, it will be a hassle to take a trolley, especialy at rush hour when an already full trolley train will then have somehow squeeze on a large percentage of people disembarking from the much larger HSR trains. CA4HSR has always been open to both a downtown and airport station, but airport to the exclusion of downtown is last century thinking. Hopefully there is still time to work to put study of a downtown station back into the mix.
James Fujita Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
A lot of the people getting off at Los Angeles Union Station will be making a transfer to the Red Line, Metrolink, the Regional Connector or a bus. Unless your destination is Olvera Street or Chinatown, Union Station isn’t that centrally located.
The same is true of San Diego’s downtown station. People will be making transfers. It’ll be take the Trolley or walk to Comic-Con, in July heat, in costume.
Daniel Krause Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
It true that LA union also will require transfers for most riders. However, they have a high-capacity heavy rail system in addition to a plethora of other rail line. SD’s situation is a bit different. They will have the trolley, which has less capacity to absorb huge numbers of riders disembarking all at once and rushing for a connection. This is going to be a problem at rush hour as those trolleys are already pretty full when I ride them at rush hour. LA also has more potential for developable land around Union Station to create more destinations.
For SD, why not go downtown (which what I thought the Authority was committed to) and at least let a portion of riders walk to downtown. Furthermore in downtown many commuters will have disembarked from the trolley, so space will be freed up for HSR users requiring connections beyond Santa Fe station. Further, at the downtown site, destinations can be created to compliment the rest of downtown. At the airport, no new development will be done accept parking lots. Not a nice place to be welcomed to SD. I am not saying a transfer is the end of the world, but when downtown is just down the road, it seems short sighted. I actually think it hurts the image of SD, that a major city can’t get their S*** together enough to create a nice station environment. Zaragoza Spain made this mistake. They created a new HSR station about 1.5 miles outside of downtown and actually abandoned the historic rail station in the city center. People have been very unhappy about this in that city. They could have constructed two HSR stations, one at the current location to serve the new development, and one below the historic station in the City center. But they instead eliminated downtown from access and the results have been poor.
Fresno and Bakersfield are way ahead of the thinking in SD. SD still has a conceptual of the rail station like an airport and just seem blind to the urban fabric and how a railway station can enliven it. In fact, it appears that most cities along LA-SD route are stuck in a suburban mentality and even denying that TOD is approrpriate for their context (i.e Murrietta, etc). I think the entire LA-SD line needs to be rethought and some new thinking needs brought to bare.
Donk Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 7:05 am
HSR won’t reach downtown SD until 2025 or 2030. In the meantime there is lots of time for them to get their shit together. They will hopefully finish up the intermodal airport station serving the trolley, Coaster, and Amtrak within the next 5 years. At this point there will likely be development in the area (though boxed in by the freeway). They also might by this time realize the benefit of a second stop in Downtown.
Previously I was 100% in the Downtown Santa Fe Depot camp. Now because they are already planning on building an intermodal station, I am more in the camp of – build it to the airport station first, then to Downtown. The other alternative might be an Old Town and Downtown stop. They might also realize at a later time that continuing the line to TJ might also be useful, but they can hold off on this decision for a decade.
They should definitely have a UTC stop. It would be shortsighted to force everyone to travel south to catch HSR to then go north. But again, I don’t see this inland route ever happening and I be the final outcome wlll be an upgraded (non-electrified) coastal route.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 11:30 am
What inland route do you think will never happen? You mean HSR from SD -> Riverside -> LA?
As I noted above, there are 50% more commuters to SD from Riverside as there are from LA and Orange combined. I think HSR will be a huge benefit to them.
However, I hope/wish both routes would get built in the long run.
Bobierto Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Granted, but what interesting things do you walk to from Santa Fe? For visitors, there’s the cruise ship terminal and the Nimitz … Horton Plaza?
James Fujita Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
it’s close to the Coronado Ferry… or does that count as a transfer?
Dan S. Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 12:20 am
Perhaps this is too much quoting, but I just noticed these additional statements from the Prelim AA Report about the same segment. (They commented separately on the alignment to downtown SD and the station itself.)
J. Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Although El Monte, West Covina, and Pomona aren’t seen as destinations, I do think there should be a station in this study area in order to serve the SGV. SGV local governments did become vocal about transportation projects during Measure M and 30/10 plans – we shouldn’t leave them out of this. HSR has potential to create destinations, it is something SGV currently lacks.
The El Monte Transit Station is already undergoing renovation and is becoming the transportation hub of SGV. When completed, even without an HSR station, the area around El Monte Transit Station will be ripe for redevelopment. If only Metrolink had its station here as well instead of just a mile or so north. Saying this, the El Monte Metrolink and El Monte Transit Center already provide a plethora of connections around SGV and to LA. On top of this, just a few miles north is the Gold Line to serve the foothill cities on the north side of SGV. I think El Monte will be okay without the HSR station.
The West Covina HSR station would have less potential than El Monte considering West Covina is even more of a bedroom suburb than El Monte and there would be less space and buffer zones for redevelopment of the strip malls surrounding the area. There could potentially be room for development on Westfield’s mall next I-10 – maybe this could be plussed to become a destination?
As I said in a previous comment, currently, Downtown Pomona is underutilized and has much potential. In its heyday, Downtown Pomona used to be the epicenter of entertainment in this cusp of the IE/SGV. Fox Theater was renovated a few years ago and now hosts countless concerts during the year from new and mainstream artists. The Glass House and Aladdin Jr. serve as hubs for local and rising bands in the area. Half of Downtown Pomona is the Arts District and is home to many Art Galleries. The other half of Downtown is an Antique Row that is famous in the Antique Collector community – according to storeowners, plenty of Japanese tourists visit this row; it’s even known internationally! At the western end of Downtown is a medical university that is rising in population and is eyeing future expansion. Students at Cal Poly could also utilize the HSR station. Downtown Pomona is once again becoming one of those hidden treasures a majority of people don’t realize about, but it is popular amongst many when events occur. It has plenty of potential and could quickly become a destination if HSR creates a station here. Downtown Pomona is also a hub for bus lines extending out into the IE and west into SGV.
In the San Fernando Valley, we need a station both at Sylmar/San Fernando, and in Burbank: http://thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/LA-to-Palmdale-HSR.jpg
The downtown Burbank site would be a much better place to go; there are more transit connections and it is closer to the destination in the east Valley. The Buena Vista station and the Branford Street station don’t have good options to connect to north-south or East-west transit, and are not really near anything either.
StevieB Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 12:45 am
The city of Burbank does not want a station downtown. Trying to force a station on the city would be more trouble than it is worth.
Matthew B Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 6:20 am
I think there could be room for an infill station later, but we shouldn’t be confusing the role of HSR and Metrolink. I think multiple SFV stations might be a bit overkill. I’d prefer one station, but massively upgraded connecting service with Metrolink and Metro. More frequent Metrolink service, and perhaps an extension of the Red line north to a Burbank Airport station, for example.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 11:13 am
The role of Metrolink, in the form of FRA freight diesel hauled dinotrains on the Anaheim-LAUS-Burbank-Sylmar-Palmdale corridor, is to die forthwith.
There is no reason at all the be operating antique, fuel-inefficient, over-crewed, maintenance-inefficient, historical replica, glacially slow trains on tracks parallel to and redundant with brand new publicly financed high quality HSR-compatible tracks, and there is less than no reason for these to serve separate and unequal and fully redundant stations.
Moreover, in a sane world, people would understand that there is going to be no purpose to even buy “high speed trains” for a decade or more, until nearly the entire first phase of the system is complete. (Doing so earlier and running at stupid stunt speeds for partial-length trips is simply a gross waste of money, using the wrong technology for the medium-distance job, and locking in technology which will be a decade obsolete by the time it can be used, and wasting huge amounts of money on a rapidly depreciating “asset”.)
Once the tracks and stations are in place, constructed and placed in service incrementally, the most important thing is to put them in service, carrying trains that carry real people. Between Anaheim and Palmdale, those people are the people who put up with crappy FRA Metrolink today (and those who don’t because it is too slow, expensive and infrequent.)
But to imply that “confusing the role of HSR and Metrolink” is that HSR should get shiny new (and nearly always empty and unused, in the most optimistic scenario) tracks and stations, while Metrolink’s job is to fart along at ground level at snail’s pace, is to completely misunderstand how modern rail systems are built and operated are part of successful public investments — at least in advanced industrialised first world democracies, which are not subject to the brilliant schemes of American’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals.
Why advocate for the worst solution, based purely on a word game about “high speed” and “commuter” but with no thought about “tracks” and “schedules” and “stations”? I simply don’t get it.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
That sounds impeccably rational.
Now go find the money to be rational. Come back when you’ve got it.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Weird science fact to astonish your friends: it’s cheaper to the the cheaper thing.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
It’s easier to get voters to approve 5 dollars for each of the next 10 years than 10 dollars next year and 1 dollar for the next 9. New modern trains may well save money in the long run, but there’s an upfront cost.
Welcome to political reality.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
What’s 30/10, then?
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 9:56 am
An example of Los Angeles showing remarkable and unusual rationality. :-)
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 8:03 am
A train fleet of sufficient size to operate the corridor will need procurement (due to replacement and/or augmentation Metrolink-wide) within the time frame regardless of HSR.
So why buy crappy obsolete stuff, pay to maintain crappy obsolete grade-crossing-filled, unelectrified, high-operating-cost FRA-crippled dinotrains and dinotracks within literal spitting distance of brand new tracks that the public has just spent tens of billions to build and which will be doing nothing (ie not carrying trains) nearly all of the time?
Far worse than insane. But it’s what the foamers and, most importantly, the consultants and agency lifers like.
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Richard, think in terms of property acquisition difficulties.
Metrolink OWNS a whole lot of tracks. Running trains on the tracks they own is a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to run trains on tracks which don’t exist yet.
I’m all for exclusive electric passenger tracks. It may, however, be cheapest and most effective to buy UP some new rights-of-way (they can be twisty and long!), and then kick them off and electrify the existing Metrolink routes.
jim Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
This is an argument we used to have a lot when deciding whether to ship now or wait until we were more feature-complete on more advanced technology. Shipping earlier was nearly always the right thing to do. Comparably, providing high speed service as early as possible is likely the right thing to do here. If (big if) Bakersfield to Merced can be constructed fairly rapidly, it would take maybe three trainsets, four at the outside, to run hourly service on that segment (which is as much as the likely ridership would support anyway). Where’s the lock in? When CHSRA wants to buy a real fleet, throw them away (or sell them off). Or maybe just lease them in the first place. When CHSRA wants to expand to LA-SF, resignal the entire stretch with whatever’s the latest and greatest signaling technology. What’s been spent on superseded technology? A couple of hundred million at the outside. On a project that’s going to run north of $40B, that’s small change. And what’s been learned from actually running HSR trains, even at long headways, and actually ticketing passengers is probably worth it. It’s always better to fail on a small system than on a big one. The PR value from demonstrating routine high speed travel — 168 miles in around an hour — comes free.
PeakVT Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 10:23 am
If the corridor could be consolidated to 4 tracks instead of 6, Burbank might be more receptive to the downtown option. Metrolink owns the tracks AFAIK, so at least ownership problems aren’t preventing mixed operations.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 10:58 am
America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professionals are interested solely in maximizing the amount of concrete poured and the amount of Special Local Conditions which require Special Local Solutions.
Anywhere else in the universe, all passenger rail service in this corridor (as with San Francisco-Redwood City-Fremont-Livermore-Tracy, as with LA-Anaheim) would be integrated, sharing the same tracks, operating to the same platforms in the same stations, with a single standardised train control system, on a shared and integrated timetable, and with integrated ticketing.
The very idea of spending tens of millions of dollars and ending up running 19th century, freight-train-regulated, “commuter rail” parallel to and redundant with and separate from nose bleed expensive and over-built 21st century infrastructure is as close to the definition of insanity as you can find.
An entirely new, dedicated, high performance, reliable, hugely lower operating cost, more attractive, more efficient fleet of regional trains to replace Metrolink “commuter rail” with just the rounding errors of the spare change left over from not going the preliminary studies of how to do things the America’s Finest Transportation Planning Professional Way.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 7:54 am
Maybe they can get someone from NJTransit …. NJTransit mind you…. to explain why they only have 5 tracks at Secaucus.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
That’s easy. They have maximal vertical circulation there, plus faregates, so it’s not useful as a transfer. It’s also located next to truck storage yards, so it’s not useful as an O&D station. This depresses ridership levels, making it easy to get away with fewer tracks, even with NJT’s inefficient track use.
Joey Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
The silly thing is that they’re requiring Burbank to have 4 HSR tracks (2 platform and 2 passing). This is ridiculous because (a) no trains are going to pass that close to Union Station and (b) Trains won’t be traveling fast enough for passing platforms without stopping to be a serious safety concern.
PeakVT Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
I think having run-through tracks at every station is a good idea. But just like in San Diego, keeping HSR trains entirely separate when there is no need (AFAICT) makes no sense. From what I can gather, UP sends about 3 trains each way daily through Soledad Canyon, and 4-5 on the Coast Line, but they mostly move at night. Metrolink and Amtrak run at most 5 trains per hour. So there is room for HSR trains to take the slow/platform track for the trains that stop at Burbank. Not every train will, of course.
Joey Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Either way, you shouldn’t need more than four tracks.
The LA parks and river people are the most powerful groups in California in regard to high speed rail right now.
Joey Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:59 pm
And yet, one of the alignments carried forward for the Rio de Los Angeles State Park area was the at-grade Metrolink alternative, which would, in effect, permanently segregate the park from the river. Both of the trench alternatives, which would have improved park connectivity without breaking the bank, were removed because apparently Metrolink said that sharing a trench would be infeasible for some reason.
dfb Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Not feasible b/c of opposition from freight operators that do not want to bother with going up and down a trench. Metrolink is opposing the at grade alternative that was kept.
StevieB Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 12:37 am
Metrolink would have too steep an exit from the trench to use their maintainence facility just south of Rio de Los Angeles state park.
Joey Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 7:35 am
There is more than a mile between the maintenance facility turnout and the beginning of the park. If you consider 0.5% to be a steep exit, then sure. And that’s not even taking the natural grade into account, which gives you almost 25 feet for free.
Joey Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 7:43 am
That’s ridiculous. The grades involved would be much lower than the maximum for heavy freight.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 11:17 am
The first rule of controlling outcomes (the desired one being “do it as expensively as possible, and do it the way my granpappy would have done it”) is to set the parameters of the “evaluation”.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Calling it a river is a euphemism. It’s a flood channel where terminators have truck chases.
Spokker Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 1:08 am
They think they’re going to be able to fill it with water and grow shit in there. Some asshole kayaked down the channel and suddenly everybody wants to “bring back” the river.
Wad Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 2:26 am
There’s a stretch in Atwater Village and near Griffith Park where nature has come back in the concrete river. It’s quite beautiful, actually.
Victor Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 9:40 am
If Yer talking about the section I think Yer talking about, It has no concrete bottom, Just the sides are made of concrete, Why? Cause of a naturally occurring spring there, So concrete there wasn’t and isn’t too practical.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Hey, hey, hey. Thanks for dumbing down fifteen years worth of advocacy, Spokker. Way to go.
Nevermind the fact that there are forces far stronger and more progressive than one kayaker with regard to restoring the River.
Spokker Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
It’s a redevelopment project not an environmental project.
James Fujita Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 9:38 am
Why can’t it be both? I have my doubts about our ability to clean up the river, but a cleaner, greener river can be good for the environment and good for the economy as well. Rivers from San Antonio to Paris have been showcases for cities.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
The concretized parts of the Seine are much, much better than the LA River. For a start, the Seine is a real river, whereas the LA River is a glorified creek.
James Fujita Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:22 am
which is why I augmented my comments with “a cleaner, greener river”…
otherwise, all you’re saying is equivalent to “driving to San Francisco is faster than HSR because SR doesn’t exist yet”
Alon Levy Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
There’s no project that would make the LA River wide enough to be more than a creek.
Victor Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 9:37 am
When It rains, The LA River comes alive and is best avoided.
Pro-click zone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr1fim1XQfY
Trains?
“I don’t think any of these are particularly noteworthy developments, except maybe the Elysian Park tunnel concept.”
Actually, this is the most noteworthy post in months for someone from SoCal…
Matthew B Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 6:24 am
Good point. I’d say everything this post is much more noteworthy than the slew of posts on Gilroy that were featured here some months ago. LA is far from where Robert lives, and he forgets that this post is relevant to the majority of California’s population. This isn’t the Northern California High Speed Rail Blog.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Really? I disagree – I’ve had posts on the San Gabriel Valley in recent months – but the fact is there just isn’t very much action going on in SoCal right now for HSR. There have been times, notably in 2009 and the first half of 2010, where I had a *lot* of posts on SoCal HSR, including on LA and SD issues.
Most of the posts in the weeks and months to come will be Central Valley-related, since that’s where most of the action is.
However, if you or anyone else ever want to write about LA HSR, you’re welcome to submit something and I’ll post it.
One of the noteworthy developments is the formation of the Inland Empire High-Speed Rail Coalition by San Bernardino Mayor Patrick Morris and Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge that is advocating station locations at the San Bernardino Intermodal Transit Center and Transit Village and at March Inland Port.
Combined with the station location at Ontario International Airport, the three stops would connect directly or indirectly with all three established and emerging Inland Empire international airports: Ontario, San Bernardino, and March.
To meet the long-term aviation demand in the SCAG and SanDAG regions, I think this configuration makes a great deal of sense. The lower-order intermodal connectivity, as well the development potential of these sites, additionally presents a strong case for the 215 alignment and for these two station stops.
Joey Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 7:30 am
How the hell is March a good idea? There’s actually nothing out there. There are plenty of opportunities to place this station closer to actual people, even in the city of Riverside, but instead they choose a stop too far south to adequately serve anyone.
Florida HSR is dead. It’s just a breaking news alert but the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of the governor.
Spokker Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 7:20 am
Oh, here it is.
http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/march/214519/Court-rules-Gov.-Scott-can-refuse-federal-money-for-high-speed-rail
YesonHSR Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 8:08 am
hopfully this moron will be recalled…NOW when and where is the money going !!
Victor Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 10:03 am
That is for the moment impossible in Florida, As Alan F said here that Florida doesn’t have that ability yet, So they may be stuck with that turd for 4 years. See: March 4th, 2011 at 8:50 am (above).
synonymouse Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 11:35 am
You guys are just randomly fulminating and totally ignoring the bigger picture, namely the ideological picture, for genuine conservatives like Walker.
They correctly see the hsr as a plan for a nationalized railway network like the DB or SNCF. It would be dominated by militant unions, the GOP bet noire, and require very real subsidies. This is anathema to conservatives in general, not just the tea party. You can term their political and economic beliefs moronic but correctly spotting and opposing a scheme that runs counter to your basic beliefs is not moronic, but consistent.
Besides the US and California are facing some structural problems that dwarf the hsr in particular and the Stimulus in general. Bay Area media are trumpeting the Bay Bridge for 2013, with whatever President in power then in attendance. But think about it: the damn thing was built in China and only underscores just how far US industry has fallen. IMHO no reason to celebrate.
Besides the distribution of money and power just continues to worsen and distort. Most all of the money is in the hands of a sliver of the population and this elite is effectively exempt from taxation. In order to tap this huge reservoir of cash a draconian enforcement apparatus will have to be in effect. But exactly the opposite is happening out of the fear of what a ruthless state bureaucracy is capable of. I was watching French tv last nite on the internet and lo and behold the French government is in the process of eliminating taxes on existing fortunes. Can you imagine the idea of such a thing as taxing fortunes(patrimony)in the US? Point is the imbalance between the unbelievably rich and the masses is growing rather than shrinking.
It will prove impossible to construct and operate Stilt-A-Rail with monies squeezed out of the ordinary joes. If you haven’t noticed they have less and less as the months roll by. HSR zeal is waning in DC and the Repubs are likely to do well in 2012. Time to drastically amend Pro 1A and make it incremental. For sure dump the Detour.
Victor Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Ah go squeeze Yer Cheese elsewhere Synny. ;p
Eric M Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Mouse said: “Time to drastically amend Pro 1A and make it incremental”
What the hell do you think they are doing right now smart guy!! The CV is the first of many “increments” as part of a whole. You are obviously one of those people that can’t see past the end of thier nose!
Dude, you really need to do some homework instead of talking to hear yourself talk.
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:06 am
You’re just making shit up now, right, syn? “genuine conservatives like Walker” — that’s a joke!
I must agree that the superrich are undertaxed, of course. When people like Walker are bought-and-paid-for employees of the superrich Koch Brothers, that’s what you get. Perhaps you should study up, however: this state of affairs is unsustainable. Look up “Versailles” and “1789″ for examples of what happens when right-wingers think they can get away with hoarding all the money.
Luckily California has voted for sanity and should be able to move forward, with the well-thought-out prop 1A plan. The rest of the country is not as lucky; Wisconsin is having to organize massive grassroots protests just to avoid being trashed and looted.
Spokker Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Why would he be recalled? It’s very much a divided state. They voted for the project in 2000 and repealed it in 2004. There is no consensus in Florida.
On my way to inform myself about the San Diego Trolley extensions, I stumbled upon this:
SD-LA express service by Amtrak
http://www.sdmts.com/Marketing/NewAmtrakExpress.asp
I wonder if they want to provide a faster service or if this is just another way to cut.
Anyways, here is the SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. I think the Midcoast line is suppose to run along the “conventional” LA-SD HSR proposal. I’m talking about the one that goes to UTC.
Emma Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Forgot the link. There you go:
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/meetingid/meetingid_2554_12188.pdf
Page 76 provides a map.
Matthew F. Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Nice, I hadn’t seen the December meeting documents.
Spokker Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
“I wonder if they want to provide a faster service or if this is just another way to cut.”
Cut what?
Nathanael Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Some rather large percentage of the riders on the Surfliner route (I think upwards of 50%) go all the way from SD to LA, so it makes sense to try out an express. The Coaster and Metrolink provide local service in any case, and the number of riders who go from north-of-Riverside to South-of-Riverside who aren’t going all the way from SD to LA is even smaller last I checked.
Ken Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:34 am
It’s a nice start, but to me this isn’t “express,” it’s more of a “limited” service. To be “express,” it should only be LA-Irvine-San Diego service.
My apologies if this has already been posted. This hearing will be available via webcast.
Finding Ways to Encourage and Increase Private Sector Participation in Passenger Rail Service
2167 Rayburn House Office Building
March 11, 2011
http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=1149