Bakersfield Californian Calls on Valley Republicans to Back HSR Funding
While Valley Republican Congressmen are busy representing oil companies, their constituents are growing restless and annoyed. The Bakersfield Californian is now among them, with this editoral calling for Republicans to support HSR funding:
If California high-speed rail is the boondoggle that detractors say it is, it sure has a lot of people fooled. Officials behind the state’s bullet train endeavor say the project could create 100,000 jobs — some 24,000 of them in the San Joaquin Valley — and contractors are already lining up to get a piece of it. Last month, the California High-Speed Rail Authority invited businesses both large and small to express their interest in working on some facet of the rail project, and 1,100 companies submitted the requisite paperwork.
The editorial goes on to call out Bakersfield congressman Kevin McCarthy for not supporting Bakersfield’s desperate hopes for jobs. The editorial closes by reminding McCarthy and his colleagues that their constituents voted for high speed rail in 2008 partly because of the promise of jobs:
That’s right: Just two years ago, California voters agreed to finance high-speed rail, many of them undoubtedly swayed by the promise of jobs in this recession-wracked state. Yet some leaders refuse to get on board.
“The more time we spend on this fairy tale, the longer people will be out of work,” Visalia’s Devin Nunes said last week. Actually, Congressman, we suspect the opposite is true.
The absurdity of Nunes’ statement is obvious. It’s a totally indefensible and illogical claim that should get Nunes laughed out of the room. And in a normal political environment that’s precisely what would happen. Any Congressman who looks at 24,000 jobs and somehow says that’s bad would be guaranteeing themselves a defeat at the next election.
These aren’t normal times. Republicans like Nunes, McCarthy and Denham represent oil companies and billionaires like the Koch Brothers, and understand that their job is to their bidding, even if it comes at the cost of a whopping 24,000 jobs for their constituents. It’s good that the Bakersfield Californian is pushing back, though. It’s time for the Valley to stand up and demand that all their representatives support not only jobs, but a train that will help clean their air and, most importantly of all, provide the basis of prosperity for the rest of the century.
Sounds like the liberal media is once again blowing the communist horn. We’d be better off paying 25,000 people to dig holes and then fill them up again, at least that way, we’re not on the hook for decades of operating costs and maintenance fees. We all know rail is never, ever profitable. Ever.
We all know the only way to a healthy, happy society, is one with a 15% flat tax rate, and as little government as possible. Except for the military. And pest control. And the dams and pumping systems. And the FAA. And the FBI. And customs agents. And border patrol. And essential air service. And highways. And crop subsidies. And the engineer corp. And programs promoting our agriculture abroad. And did I mention highways? We need more highways. And ports. And programs to expand ports.
Small government and low taxes!
political_incorrectness Reply:
April 6th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
More highways? This is what most of the politicians are doing. Thinking in the short term.
Fact is oil is going UP AGAIN. $4 a gallon in California, that is considered the threshold of pain. Consumer prices are going UP in response. People are driving LESS because of HIGHER gas prices. So why expand highways when they are not going to be used as much and THEY DONT PAY FOR THEMSELVES. Even Acela PAYS FOR ITSELF. It is cheap to expand capacity on railways because all you need is more trainsets unlike highways which needs lane after lane.
Communism? Far from it
MarkB Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 12:03 am
The service department called: your sarcasm detector is due for an overhaul.
JJJ Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 12:42 am
It was probably a government subsidized sarcasm detector. Those things are never as good as the ones private companies sell.
timote Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 7:11 am
ROFL
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 5:38 am
The threshold of pain seems to be higher in Europe but it has now been reached in France with gasoline at €1.50 a litre ($7.95 a gallon). Millions of people live in rural or semi-urban transit deserts. That makes them totally car-dependent, obliging low-income families to have two cars.
Car ownership used to be a privilege of the rich. It’s now becoming the plight of the poor.
This unfair situation is the result of the EU commission’s free-trade ideology. They have decided that intercity transit is part of “the competitive segment”. Therefore, no subsidies or state-guaranteed loans are allowed. This has caused transit companies, including SNCF, to abandon areas they previously served. Just try to tell the people living there that car is freedom…
Alon Levy Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Due respect, but the problem in France is the quality of regional services, which can be and are heavily subsidized. Nothing prevents SNCF from timing trains to just connect instead of just missing each other.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 9:30 am
That’s a feature not a bug. Not everybody wants to hustle to the next train. From the passenger’s stand point they get to loiter around the station and maybe get a glass of wine. From the local people’s stand point the passengers loiter around looking for a place to buy a glass of wine….
Alon Levy Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 9:54 am
Tell that to the Swiss.
At least it’s better than Amtrak. I’m about to endure a 37-minute connection at Boston South, and that’s sheer luck that I’m near rush hour. The way back it’s a weekend and the connection is 1:30. Remind me why those people are allowed to bid on serious train projects?
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:21 am
If you’re taking an Amtrak connection at Boston South, you’re either:
(1) getting on or off the Lake Shore Limited Boston section, which is both routinely late arriving thanks to CSX, and a case where the track needs so many improvements to be reasonably timesd that I don’t think Amtrak is taking it seriously,
or (2) connecting from or to the Downeaster, where the connections are deliberately long because you have to change train stations.
Or are you connecting to the MBTA? In which case, yes, Amtrak and commuter railroad simply don’t coordinate outside of California and it’s ridiculous. Oddly, they do coordinate in California.
If connections from NEC service to Empire Service at New York or to Keystone Service at Philadelphia are that bad, then you have a complaint.
Spokker Reply:
April 6th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
4/10
Dan S. Reply:
April 6th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Hah! BTW, is this what Glenn Beck meant when he said he had other things to do? Do you hear me, “JJJ”, if that’s ~really~ your name! ;-)
How labor intensive is building a high speed rail line anyway? Tunneling can’t be that labor intensive since two tunnel boring machines seem to do all the work. But the actual track building, any good for creating jobs?
And once this thing is actually under construction, do we still expect unemployment to be low? If high speed rail could create jobs, the best time to start would have been in 2008 or something.
Spokker Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 12:49 am
Unemployment to be high, that is.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 6:48 am
At the rate of job creation of the last recovery, employment will not reach pre-recession levels until 2014, and the unemployment rate will not reach pre-recession levels until 2021.
A recession as big as we had in 2008, the risk of stimulus spending 3 or 4 years later finding a tight labor market was clearly very low, and at the sluggish rate of job creation at present, any outside risk that there was has not been realized.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 6:35 am
I think most of the jobs will be indirectly created. I once watched a construction site for the Lyon-Marseille HSR. What struck me was the huge size of the machines and how fast they progressed, but also how few people were needed to operate them.
Don’t expect to see thousands of workers busy shovelling dirt. The only shovels you’re likely to see will be the ones held by politicians when they officially open the works.
Andy M. Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 6:53 am
Those huge machines, at least back in the early 1980s, would have been built by French companies, and many of the parts would have been subcontracted by more French companies. Thus the money the government was putting into that project was benefitting the broader French economy and percolating into a broad range of different industries and geographical areas. The world has change since then, and I don’t even know if there are any French companies left that make tunneling plant or large dirt movers for example. In a similar project today, the French taxpayer’s money may be going to Brazil or China or the USA. The secondary jobs created are thus not really the same and the percentage of that money really being put to work at home is much smaller.
Likewise, I doubt that California has that many companies who are able to supply the plant required, or electrification systems for example. All this is going to be done by people outside California and probably outside the USA with the local benefit at best being that the techinicians who install and work the plant are going to be staying in a hotel and eating locally etc.
The real job creation push will not be from the project itself but from its benefits that are reaped once it goes live. Areas around stations will be redeveloped and improved, for example, with new business opportunities and opening, companies will become more productive because their people spend less time in congestion. This is the real value of HSR.
Andre Peretti Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 11:32 am
If rail really does take off in the US, there will also be a huge amount of money not spent on middle-east oil (and wars to secure it). These billions won’t sit idle. They will inevitably create jobs, many of them in new technologies for which California tends to be in the lead.
VBobier Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Yep, Of course on the News Republicans are now under attack by Parents for Republicans not wanting to extend the about to expire taxes, Cause It will mean K-12 will be cut, Next to be cut, Republicans in the Legislature, If this happens, Could It happen? You betcha… Republicans may be poking a sleeping giant(Parents), Could We have a nearly all Democratic legislature as a result? Maybe…
Spokker Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 2:58 am
This is what I’m hopeful for. We are too reliant on oil and this is a major reason I support modes of transportation like high speed rail that operate on electricity, even if that electricity is generated by dirty, dirty coal.
Unless that coal is being shipped from some other god-awful region that hates us.
aw Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Spokker, although the TBMs may seem to do most of the work of the tunneling, consider that:
- the TBM needs to be built (probably overseas)
- the TBM needs to be transported to the site
- the TBM needs to be assembled
- some crew needs to operate the TBM (this might be 4-5 or more people)
- a lot of trucks need to haul away mining spoils
- somebody needs to make concrete segments to line the tunnel
- a bunch of trucks need to haul the segments to the TBM
- somebody needs to load the segments into the TBM
- the TBM needs to be maintained
Likewise, laying track might seem to be mostly done by some large machine or series of machines, but you still need to excavate the ROW, lay sub-grade, manufacture track, crossties and fasteners, transport materials and maintain your fancy machines.
What I’d like to know is how are “jobs” measured? Is that a man-year of work?
Spokker Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
The argument I heard is that stimulus is not as effective today because many jobs are more capital intensive than they were in the 1930s. Stimulus is also hindered because projects cannot start as soon as possible, but are delayed by politics and environmental concerns, legit or not.
aw Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
It seems to me that we need stimulus now and probably for a few years. So for now, provide stimulus for civil engineers and in a few years there will be stimulus for the construction and manufacturing trades.
If McCarthy, Nunes and Denham want to make this project affordable the first thing they should be looking at is the straglehold Union Pacfic has on their right of way. By breaking up the Union Pacific monopoly they will help the High Speed rail project save money on right of way land aqusitions, save farm land, help make Amtrak profitable, cut down on travel time, improve air quality.
Oh well one can only dream. I am suprised Mayor Sweargin of Fresno cannot talk some sense into these folks.
Jack Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 12:44 am
Did you come back from Vacation or something with a different mindset Castle? It almost sounds like you support the project again.
Donk Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 7:58 am
Well yeah, because they included his precious Merced segment in the new federal application. If that segment is not selected though, he will switch right back to Bizarro Castle Expert.
But I suspect that his only real interest is in the Castle Air Base is winning the maintenance facility contract. He must have some sort of financial interest in Castle. This would explain why he immediately flips back to the “BURN THE PROJECT TO THE GROUND!!!!” when there is a negative turn of events for Merced. He needs the Merced leg to be build right away in order for it to stand a chance against Fresno for the maintenance facility contract. As we see with NIMBYs (and everyone else), money makes people behave irrationally, and he has not given a rational reason for why it is so important for Merced to be built first – just a bunch of blather. So his financial interest in Castle is the real reason.
Don’t worry, once they select Fresno over Castle for the heavy maintenance facility, he will go back into “BURN THE PROJECT TO THE GROUND!!!!” mode.
jimsf Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 10:09 am
WHat is really the best place for the facility anyway? Merced? Fresno? Kern Co? Does it matter in th grand scheme much? Or should they go with the best financial deal? Just curious.
Donk Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 10:33 am
The only consideration should be the one that is cheapest to build and cheapest to operate. Everything else is irrelevant, assuming that the same quality work would be performed by each group. Hopefully the decision is made on this basis rather than a political basis (ie, we need more jobs than them).
synonymouse Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 10:54 am
“the one that is cheapest to build and cheapest to operate” calls for 50 extra miles of couble track and wire? PBspeak is a far cry from PBthink.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 11:25 am
How much does it cost to run spurs from I-5 into Bakerfield and Fresno? How many miles of track is that?
synonymouse Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Without engineering both routes you won’t be able to accurately quantity. From Tejon you have to proceed east paralleling the main route -99- to Bakersfield. Going Tehachapi you have to veer east to the Loop.
The Quantm alignment is more direct to north-south, accesses both I-5 and 99 and is closer in. generally. In case of ROW problems you are always closer to the main highway route and to LA.
VBobier Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Give It up Sore Loser(Synonymouse), Tejon is dead, Even the BLE wouldn’t bother with a tunnel through there, So no freight or passenger rail will touch Tejon, It may as well be made of Kryptonite.
thatbruce Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
From Tejon you have to proceed east paralleling the main route -99- to Bakersfield.
From where any of the QUANTM alignments reach the Central Valley floor from LA, Bakersfield is further west with varying amounts of north. Go look at a map .
thatbruce Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
31 miles along CA-99 between Bakersfield downtown and Wheeler Ridge (CA-99/I-5).
49 miles along CA-180 between Fresno downtown and Chaney Ranch (I-5/W Panoche Rd).
Call it ~80 miles of single spur track required to service Bakersfield and Fresno assuming the ‘spine’ is in the I-5 median and that Bakersfield is treated as a exurb of LA for HSR service routing purposes. ~160 miles if you want double track. More if other significant CV cities have similar spurs.
But the topic of this sub-thread was where to locate the CV maintenance facility, not how to get between LA and the CV.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
31 miles at an average speed of 124 means it takes 15 minutes to cover it.
49 miles at an average speed of 196 means it takes 15 minutes to cover it.
Makes for very interesting schedules, especially if you want to go from Bakersfield to Fresno or either to Sacramento.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
If you want to go from Bakersfield to Fresno, there already is Amtrak service that is time competitive with auto.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
According to Amtrak’s timetables it 110 miles between Fresno and Bakersfield and it takes just over two hours. It might be faster if you are driving one of those new fangled Model As. In a modern car not so much.
Elizabeth Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Some of the trains are two hours and some are 1:51. Google maps gave drive time as 1:52.
My point is that for a market of that length, it is not obvious you need high speed rail.
joe Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Fresno-Bakersfield market isn’t the lone rational for HSR project but clearly that segment would benefit from the increased speed. It would clearly be competitive with automobile travel – and safer.
By comparison Chicago-Milwaukee is only 88 miles but it was a high priority HSR corridor as part of the line connecting to Madison.
Milwaukee County, WI pop. is 953,328. Fresno is 909,000.
Madison WI Pop is 223,389. Bakersfield pop is 308,392.
The distance is 80 miles.
Another HRS route connected Orlando to Tampa: 89 Miles
So my question to CARRD members is:
WTF? Why isn’t it obvious to link Fresno to Bakersfield via HSR?
Elizabeth Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
It depends on the specifics, but HSR seems not to be transformative for distances that short. This is not saying that the market should not have decent intercity service but it is just that there it is not obvious there is a lot of demand there for HSR.
The current Amtrak service could be better but it is surprisingly decent (both cost and time).
Donk Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Why is this even being discussed? Obviously the whole point is not just to connect these two cities to each other but to connect them to tens of other cities in the state. Obviously it would not make sense just to build a single HSR route from Bakersfield to Fresno.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
NY-Philadelphia 90 miles. Last time I checked Acela makes it in 1:07. No need to upgrade that since it’s fast enough. Who wants to tell Amtrak, SEPTA and NJTransit that the money they are applying for is pointless? Doesn’t have anything to do with New Rochelle to Wilmington or Stamford to Paoli or Newark to Newark or Washington DC to Trenton or ….. Merced to Palmdale or Sacramento to Bakersfield or San Jose to …
Alon Levy Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Who wants? Me. I’m on a Regional that, if there are no more timetable slippages, will take a total of just under 4:30 to get me to Boston. That’s an average speed of 80 km/h. I have nothoing against constant tension catenary, but they should really do something about their POS rolling stockm. I recommend reefing – I hear the artificial reefs are really popular and they have a shortage of trains.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 11:15 am
The Amfleets still have some life left in them. Send them out to California while they are waiting for HSR to open.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 11:30 am
The Amfleets are half-decent. The door placement kind of sucks, but they can stay in service for a while longer, until they host tuna in the tune cans.
But the high-maintenance crap known as the Acela has to go. Are they trying to create maintenance jobs?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
When they finish rolling out the M8s and the SilverlinerVs everything on the NEC will be equipped with ASCES and capable of 60Hz operation. ( they can consider relying on PTC instead of hunkd of steel in crashes ) They have to consider upgrading the trains and upgrading the infrastructure. Fast light tilting trains don’t do you much good if the electric supply pukes when you look at it cross eyed. They can’t go fast if the speed has to be restricted to 80 on hot days. And you can’t run many more of them even though they are lighter.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:26 am
Amtrak has been trying to get funding for a new fleet for quite a long time. Look at the Fleet Replacement Plan (IIRC) among other documents on their website.
They haven’t even rounded up the money to replace the cars from the 1940s yet, so you may be stuck with the Amfleets for a while. The upside is that if, as planned, they replace the long-distance fleet first, the NEC may have full PTC and relaxed regulations when they get to replacing the NEC fleet.
Bret Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
The smartest location for the HMF is Shafter in Kern County….shovel ready, none of the problems that any of Fresno’s sites have….they’d be foolish not to build it there.
Castle Expert Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
I have always advocated for the North Valley for many reasons. Our area for years was told we would be built in the beginning of the first phase. The North valley had always had a great relationship with Authority staff and the Board. But the way the decison went down and the explanations given by staff on the initial route was inconsistent on what we had been told for over three years.
However, the staff did say if there was any more FRA money they would finish the Merced to Bakersfield segment. This new grant application confrims this and so yes I am happy. As far as being called a NIMBY I to not think that applies to me, To quote Robert I am a “Yimby” yes in my back yard. Donk if you want to quote me at least be accurate.
As far as being BI-polar our area feels we did a lot of heavy lifting for this project such as being impacted by it in three routes throught Merced County. (No other region in the state has the system passing through Merced to San Jose, Merced to Sacramento and Merced to Fresno.
On top of that the genisis for the Bond Measure orginated from our own Assemblywoman.
Regardless of what others think there was a real possiblity of the North Valley being entirely cut out. Ask CARD they do not want the line extended north beyond Chowchilla.
Our area has 22% unemployment and I agree with our Congressman that stimlus money for jobs
if all things are equal should be given preference to areas with the Highest umemployment.
I do not apoligize for our areas tactics we are desperate for jobs!!! We lead the state in unemployment, forcloures and teen pregnacies. We have to do whatever it takes to get out of this malise. If that makes me look Bi-Polar trying walking down the street in Merced County and looking at desperartion every day.
As far as Castle and the HMF that decsion will not come down for quite a while and if you ask Van Ark he will even tell you that they should have picked the routes and the line before doing an RFP for a HMF. Our area invested hundreds of thousands of dollars for lobbying and submitting a proposal for a HMF. This money could have been used to pay salaries for Policeman and Fire fighters. So without a line during the first round of stimulus dollars are prospects did not look good.
When the decison is finally made by the Authority and if Castle is on the right route for maintenace line it will be the number one site. The land is ready to go now. EIR, environmental permits have been signed off and the County wants to lease it to the authority for a dollar a year. Plus with MID providing electricity at a rate that no other provider can match Castle will ultimately save the tax payers more money and last I checked it is the only applicatin to date that is truly intermodal.
Our area is currently working with the entire North Valley in assemblying letters of support to the FRA. I pray that our areas hard work over the years will be rewarded. If any area needs a break it is Merced County.
Donk Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Thanks for the much more thoughtful explanation this time. I just don’t understand though how you can threaten to shut the project down though after all that hard work any time that it looks like Merced is being pushed down the line further. Merced will not be left out, it just might be pushed back further. If you truly were a YIMBY you would still support the project even if it turns out that Merced gets its spur after the full SJ-LA mainline is finished.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
How much money does Ashley Swearengin have? How much money to Charles and David Koch have?
The answer to that question will explain much.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 12:04 am
The ultimate pigs… the Kochs… maybe Roberts the only person that understands this… these two people have $21 billion apiece.. they are literally trying to remove Pres. Obama from office with their money.. they are robber barrons..and dangerous
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Among other things, those two funded Walker’s takeover in Wisconsin, Snyder’s takeover in Michigan (he’s trying to get legislation empowering him to unilaterally dissolve municipalities and hand their treasuries to private corporations of Snyder’s choosing. Not kidding, and it looks like he will get it.) — Rick Scott, the criminal whose company was convicted of Medicare fraud in Florida, was also sponsored by the Koch Brothers — as was Kasich in Ohio, who’s pulling much of the same shit as in Florida, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest–the take by the Infrastructurist on the Florida money chase:
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/04/06/states-line-up-for-florida-high-speed-rail-money-%E2%80%94%C2%A0including-wisconsin/#comments
Also linked through the Infrastructurist, a special HSR Updates page sponsored by Progressive Railroading:
http://www.hsrupdates.com/FloridasRedirectedFunds/
Homepage:
http://www.hsrupdates.com/
Donk Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 8:03 am
Huh, so Missouri wants a large chunk to fix the current track and then another chunk to build a completely separate, parallel HSR route. Why should we pay $373M for them to upgrade a route that will be temporary?
“If granted, about $373 million of the federal funds would be used in the immediate future for significant improvements and upgrades to rail equipment and infrastructure, and would complement the high-speed rail project already underway in the St. Louis to Chicago corridor. Another $600 million would be used over the longer term to complete necessary planning and design for building the separate, dedicated high-speed line across Missouri, and for purchasing necessary properties.”
Read more: http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Articles-i-2011-04-01-174293.114137-Missouri-To-Pursue-Funding-For-Rail-Projects.html#ixzz1IqkjHg00
joe Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 8:41 am
St Louis to Kansas City woud complement the 115 MPR Chicago to St Louis segment.
Improving the standard service helps now, “immediate upgrades to improve speeds and schedule reliability along existing rail lines between St. Louis and Kansas City;”
The second part is pure planning and design for a future HSR project; “and longer-term design, engineering and preparation for construction of a separate, dedicated high-speed line between the two cities. ”
How temporary is this the improvement given the 2nd HSR phase isn’t real?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 11:24 am
And how much of the improvements would be used by HSR whenever that happens. They aren’t going to carving new ROW through metro St. Louis or Kansas City. Improvements to the station approaches will be used by HSR.. someday…
jim Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 10:03 am
California asked for and got money to upgrade the Surfliner route between SD and LA, which will be superseded by CAHSR Phase 2 (eventually).
Donk Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Uh, not really. The Surfliner route between SD and LA will continue to run, as it serves a completely different area than the CAHSR route between SD and LA.
JJJ Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
California has also asked for improvements to the CC and even the San Joaquin.
Im guessing the Missouri system would be the same, the older tracks would continue to be used for local stops (The Wascos and Corocorans of the world) with the HSR track being nearby, but express.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Doubtful.
If the extension to Irvine is ever built, creating a giant detour through the Inland Empire is probably not worth the cost to simply cut through the O.C. Sure, there will be blood, but when you consider construction costs ten years out in the I.E. how can it be any cheaper?
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:32 am
It’s not really cutting through urban Orange County which is the expensive part of building HSR along the Surfliner route, it’s the part south of there. There’s a godawful detour which has to be fixed with tunneling in San Diego, then numerous very rich seaside communities where the track runs on crumbling bluffs right over the beach… basically, it would be mostly tunnels plus some bulldozing of very rich people’s houses. Sound easy? The Inland Empire’s going to be easier than that.
Donk Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 8:12 am
There is something I really don’t understand here – why does Amtrak get to apply as a separate entity for the NEC? All of the NE states seem to be applying for funds for their side projects, like the from NYC-Albany, from Philly-Harrisburgh, and into New Haven. Do they have to put any skin in the game for the NEC?
This strikes me as unfair that CA supports its own intrastate Amtrak lines and has to ask for funding on its own to upgrade it, but Amtrak foots the bill for the NEC on its own. What is the deal with this?
thatbruce Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Amtrak owns and operates most of the NEC, hence why Amtrak is the entity requesting funding for NEC upgrades. Amtrak California is a working name used by Caltrans, which is a California government department, hence why the state of California is the entity requesting funding.
VBobier Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 11:08 am
The CHSRA and Caltrain need to be merged under CalTrans RR department, It would solve some funding & maybe staffing problems, But this is only My opinion.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Achtung! There’s no sense in merging CHSRA into Caltrans. It will just turn it into a even bigger political football with more bureaucracy. Instead, the merger that probably needs to happen is BART with HSR and Metrolink. That would create a single state agency in control of rail operations. The rail division of Caltrans could either be moved over or left where it is as check on the system.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Then why not merge Calrail or whatever you are going to call it with all the bus systems in the state. Have it manage Greyhound too. Take over all the airports…..
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
…and it’s rather silly for each municipality to have it’s own Department of Public Works maintianing the roads. Counties for that matter. Merge them all into Caltrans. Have the state maintain all the roads not just the state highways…..
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Do we really have to go here?
Local transportation district is California are heavily influenced by local politicians. If you are going to run a statewide (or multi-county) transportation network, it’s best to not leave that in the hands of local politicians. SF can keep MUNI. Metro can keep its buses….San Diego, Sacramento, and San Jose can keep their light rail.
I know, you are going to tell me that NY’s Metropolitan Transit Authority sucks, sucks hard, and all that. But California government is different, and ultimately, it’s not like states can’t run transportation systems. Washington State’s ferries come to mind.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Ask bus riders in Nassau County how being under the MTA’s umbrella is working out.
Other than the subway I haven’t used MTA services in years. NJTransit on the other hand sucks. Statewide. Means a yokel from the hinterlands of the Pine Barrens can cancel things…. NJTransit I use fairly frequently. Standing all the way to Maplewood is a thrill not to be missed. Standing because some yokel from the hinterlands of Pine Barrens canceled the project that would have given me a seat and 15 minute shorter ride…..
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
I think you are getting things tangled up here. In the East, where counties are small you don’t have the luxury of building local transit agencies on the scale of even the Chicago Transit Authority. In California, however, local transportation entities can get to be large, parochial and downright ungovernable in their own right. At least a state agency takes away the sort of pull that local politicians exert.
VBobier Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
And Alaska owns It’s own profitable government owned railroad… The Alaska Railroad in fact.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
At least a state agency takes away the sort of pull that local politicians exert.
Go ahead, ask the bus riders in Nassau County, population 1.3 million, what they think of having the MTA run their buses does for them. And how wonderful it is that the local pols don’t have much pull with the MTA. And how wonderful it is that they have to go out and buy a car since their bus service was eliminated.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Nassau County’s right-wing executive decided not to pay for the bus service.
New York City pays taxes for the bus service the MTA provides to it. Nassau County… doesn’t.
The MTA finally said “OK, look, either pay your fair share or you get cuts.” Nassau County’s right-wing county executive refused.
So don’t tell tall tales about the story in Nassau County. The moral of that is, if you’re relying on your neighbors to give you transit service for free, especially when as a county you are richer than your neighbors, your neighbors might decide to stop giving you the free ride.
There’s probably an example somewhere in California.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:42 am
And they wouldn’t have this problem if like Westchester County they had their own bus system.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:33 am
The UK did something very close to this under Clement Atlee. By most accounts it was pretty much a success.
New Jersey residents love to complain about New Jersey Transit, but it doesn’t seem particularly worse than the haphazard mess of transit agencies in New York State. :-P
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 11:35 am
I will say for adriondacker’s benefit that I have absolutely nothing *against* having well-run local transit agencies. However, the only real way to do that is if you can manage locally funded transit agencies. He who pays the bills calls the shots and if you have mainly state-funded transit agencies, they might as well be state agencies. :-P
David K Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 9:33 am
It probably has to do with Amtrak actually owning the tracks in the NEC, as opposed to almost everywhere else in the country, where they just operate on tracks owned by freight/commuter railroads.
jim Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 10:01 am
NJ is putting up matching funds for the Portal Bridge, the largest of the Amtrak applications. Since Amtrak is the lead, the NJ Governor won’t be able to cancel the project if the whim takes him.
VBobier Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 11:15 am
Too bad, Hopefully Amtrak gets some money for the NEC, NJ especially.
The latest continuing resolution has the HSR monies stripped out..2011 and 2.5 billion..dont know if that is 2010 or the FLA monies…The President will veto this
joe Reply:
April 7th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
or not. I’m a Chicagoan by birth and upbringing. Our President clearly spent his formidable years in Hawaii. He wouldn’t have lasted a week and never had a cent left for lunch.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 12:07 am
if not then we dont have a HSR project ..
CSX rejects HSR:
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/trade_trucks_trains/2011/04/csx-ceo-ward-rejects-high-speed-rail.html#
a gem of a quote:
“…(110mph) passenger trains will “damage” the track and cause service disruptions to its freight trains.”
With railroad leadership like this, no wonder the U.S. can’t advance out of ye olde steam railway practice in operations…
synonymouse Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 12:12 am
So the UP’s attitude is in fact typical of the railroad industry. It is the Santa Fe that is the odd man out. Wonder how long before it tires of PB.
Please explain how it is that Canada and Mexico have had purportedly leftist governments and have never successfully implemented either electrification or a semblance of high speed rail.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 9:34 am
NS is even more pro-passenger rail than BNSF.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:39 am
Yep. CSX is UP’s baby brother in anti-passenger hysteria; BNSF is moderately pro-passenger and NS is gung-ho pro-passenger (their actual proposal was for the government to own passenger tracks and for freight railroads to be tenants — and I can see where that makes economic sense).
Peter Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Who says Canada has a “leftist” government? Outside of the US, most mainstream political parties are “leftist” from a US viewpoint.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:40 am
Canada hasn’t had a leftist government since, what, Jean Chretien?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 10:00 am
I’m curious as to how a few hundred tons at 110mph is more damaging to the track than several thousand tons at 40+ miles per hour. I suspect that what they actually meant is that they would have to keep the track in a far higher state of repair than they would normally. Isn’t CSX notorious for neglecting rail maintenance and letting it deteriorate even more so than UP?
thatbruce Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 11:11 am
A derailment at 40mph is less damaging to the track and company than a derailment at 110mph. From a financial perspective, you can run more trains at 40mph over poorly maintained track than you can at 110mph before the track requires corrective maintenance or rebuilding, and if you get a derailment at 40mph, its cheap enough to just put the stuff back on the tracks and move on.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 11:23 am
If you move the freight at 80 you move the same amount of freight with half the labor and half the equipment or twice as much freight with the same amount of labor and the same amount of equipment and you can lower your rates. Your customers are happier too because their freight moves faster and more reliably.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 11:36 am
The dominant cost of freight rail operation isn’t labor. A 40 mph 4,000-ton train consumes 400 gallons of diesel an hour, which is way more expensive than a crew of 2.
thatbruce Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Doubling the speed doesn’t double the amount of freight that can be carried, or halve the labor or equipment required, unless loading/unloading the freight cars happens in an instant. Overall throughput is increased yes, but not to such an extent.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
The big impact of Rapid Freight Rail is not on the cost side, but on the market side ~ there are many freight markets that conventional freight rail cannot compete effectively in where Rapid Freight Rail would offer appealing delivery time, timeliness and cost per ton mile.
However, it has to be delivered with equivalent reliability to long haul truck freight for the transit time and timeliness advantages to be compelling.
Winston Reply:
April 8th, 2011 at 11:31 am
These calculations while not strictly correct will give you an idea. The force perpendicular to a curve that the rails must exert is given by mv^2/r. A heavy freight train might weigh 70,000 lbs per axle, while a U.S. passenger train might weigh 36,000 lb/axle. Given a 5000 foot radius curve the force that the rails must exert is:
110 mph, light train: (36000 lbf/32 ft/s^2)*(161 ft/s)^2/5000 ft = 5800 lb
40 mph, heavy train: (70000 lbf/32 ft/s^2)*(59 ft/s)^2/5000 ft = 1500 lb
So, yes, fast light trains can do more damage.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Given that the proposal is to go 110 mph on a new, third, passenger-only track, CSX’s claims are still bullshit. Fast, light trains don’t damage ADJACENT tracks more than slow trains RUNNING on said adjacent tracks.
Alan F Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
The issue, as I understand it in NY state, is the spacing between the high speed tracks and the freight tracks. The safety standards have changed in the last 100 years. CSX does not want the liability if an opened door or pipe sticking out from a improperly secured load slams into the high speed passenger train coming at 110 mph or faster in the opposite direction. There is of course the problem of derailment. Major derailments are one thing, but a buffer zone can provide protection against low speed or partial derailments where a car goes a couple of feet off the tracks. The buffer zone also room for maintenance crews and equipment to work on the freight tracks while the passenger tracks are in operation. The question is, how much of a buffer zone is reasonable? Is the ROW wide enough to allow for 2 freight tracks and 2 passenger tracks with a, say, 20′ spacing between them? If not, then acquisition of adjacent may be necessary – which can get expensive.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Yes, CSX got investigated by the state and federal governments in NY for substandard maintenance causing derailments and crashes. It’s shameful that they were allowed to buy up the New York Central line from Conrail.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:41 am
New York needs to seize those tracks from CSX by eminent domain and shoot anyone who tries to stop them. There’s a reason we have sovereignty. Let CSX fuck around in the courts afterwards. Ward is just being a lying obstructionist.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:49 am
This is the former main line of the New York Central Railroad they ran around 30 or 40 passenger trains a day on it.. of course with more tracks but still this is total BS that it will ruin their freight rail business .. separate passenger track should be built beside the freight and maintained by the state
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
This was mostly a 4-track line back in the day.
Scenes from parts of this route in the steam era:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae3-oayoGA8
Another film from the 1950s, featuring the diesels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQjYSB6ivHg
The four tracks of this route were not always on the same right of way. This was most pronounced in the Albany area, where there were separate freight and passenger lines, due to the locations of the passenger station and the freight yard.
The NYC was also famous as “the Water Level Route.” With the exception of the 1.6% (?) West Albany hill (approximately 10 miles or so out of the station in that town), the whole route followed rivers or the shores of the Great Lakes. This was a fast-running railroad, with trains hitting 60 mph speeds prior to the Civil War, and a speed record of 112 mph set in 1893. Only a general 80-mph speed limit policy (which long predated the ICC order) prevented higher speeds.
This same road set the speed record for American rail service at about 183 mph in a test with a jet-powered rail car in the 1960s; supposedly this record still stands.
http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/01/jet-powered-other-futuristic-trains.html
OK, you can laugh. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Oh, and if it’s worth anything, CSX has been a source of grief for those who would want to run excursions, or even just to move older equipment, even if said older equipment is on roller bearings (older-type, non-rotating end cap, or inside bearing, and no steam engines on their own wheels at all), and otherwise meets interchange standards.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Some other video of more recent years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4AY-tH4Ndw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsoWL5ahpT0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kb_f_N-KnU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rsFApgQNvc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu5yyWXdAqc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzwurnhR1f4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT6Yf3v8HrM&feature=related
Finally, just for fun, a commercial video preview featuring numerous California locations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ON_3vTxVvI
Enjoy.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
The former main line of the New York Central runs 30 to 40 trains, an hour, today. The Park Ave Viaduct and the Park Ave Tunnel.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 11:10 am
No need to do that. When CSX says their ROW is worth a gazillion dollars a foot, after the assessors in every town along the line stops drooling, they can get restated tax bills for however long the assessor can go back and restate the tax bill. Or CSX can be reasonable.
Alan F Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
CSX may be willing to sell their ROW if it is no longer used or heavily used. The NC application for the Florida HSR funds has 2 items for purchasing 140 miles of the CSX S-line for a total of $300 million dollars. The 75 mile abandoned part of the S-Line from Collier Yard near Petersburg, VA to Norlina, NC is $50 million and the 65 miles of active S-Line from Norlina to Cary, NC is $250 million budgeted. NC is offering to put up 20% state matching, so the federal funding requests with Program management overhead added are $42 million for the abandoned line and $210 million for the active line. Since CSX puts most of their traffic on the A-Line, they are apparently willing to sell 140 miles of the S-Line, likely with provisions allowing them to use for a limited amount of freight traffic. I don’t think NC would have put this into a formal application if they had not discussions with CSX on a price range.
The SE HSR plans for the S-Line are to restore the abandoned segment, straighten a lot of curves, close all grade crossings and upgrade the line to 110 mph speeds. By buying it, they can do that. By closing all grade crossings, they also prepare the way for future electrification and higher speeds. Will be interesting to see if the FRA provides the money to buy at least the abandoned ROW to essentially bank it for HSR. If CA HSR had the opportunity to buy 140 miles of ROW they could use as a HSR corridor $300 million, I imagine they would jump on it like Charlie Sheen on a hooker.
So CSX is willing to sell unused or underused ROW in the right circumstances and run passenger trains on their system so long as it does not seriously interfere with their main business, running freight trains. Which is also vital to our economy.
jim Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
My understanding is there is an MOA between NCDOT and CSX on the procedures to be followed if NCDOT wishes to buy the S-line: how the RoW will be assessed, what trackage rights would remain and so on. The $ figure in the application was presumably derived from applying the MOA to current conditions. If conditions change, then the price NCDOT will have to pay will change.