Madera County Farm Bureau Presses for Highway 99 Route
For a whole host of reasons, a lot of San Joaquin Valley farmers would like the HSR tracks to follow existing transportation corridors as much as possible. And while I think some of them tend to dramatically overstate the possible impacts to farmland of HSR tracks that don’t follow existing corridors, I also think that if the tracks can follow Highway 99, it’s a sensible thing to do.
The problem, as longtime readers of the blog will know, is Union Pacific. Their tracks hug Highway 99 for much of the length of the San Joaquin Valley. They were there first, and Highway 99 is where it is because that’s where the tracks were. The major cities of the San Joaquin Valley all grew up around those tracks, from Bakersfield to the city named after longtime Bank of California head William Ralston (he didn’t want a station named after him, so the railroad named it after his modesty instead) and points northward.
In Madera County, the HSR tracks are proposed to follow one of two routes. The second option, A2, would follow the UP/99 corridor. And the local farm bureau would like that option selected:
At the Madera County Board of Supervisors meeting tomorrow, a resolution in support of so-called route A2 will be considered. Route A2 is meant to be the least damaging north-south route connecting Merced and Fresno as it does not impact as much farmland as other proposed routes, according to growers….
The A2 route is the most direct route and would use the existing Union Pacific Railroad transportation corridor. UPRR has previously said that they do not want the California High Speed Rail Authority using their tracks due to safety concerns.
The bureau has been vocal in their opposition to route A1, which would use existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks. Route A1 is estimated to destroy at least 720 acres of farmland that would then be used to construct portions of the track for the high-speed rail, according to opponents.
It’s all well and good for the county to pass a resolution backing A2 if they want. But it’s not the CHSRA they have to convince. It’s Union Pacific – and the members of Congress who have regulatory power over the railroad.
Madera County needs to let their federal representatives, particularly Jeff Denham – who represents the bulk of Madera County – know that they want Congress to lean on Union Pacific to get them to drop their absurd opposition to sharing land near their right-of-way with high speed trains. If UPRR won’t agree, no amount of resolutions will actually produce a Highway 99 alignment.
And what is the position of the cities of Madera and Chowchilla?
Farther south in Fresno County, Fowler Selma and Kingsburg all expressed disapproval of HSR 99.
Easy way to solve this problem.
Step one: US government purchases controlling stake (51%) of UP for $25 billion.
Steo two: UP is suddenly pro-passenger rail. Any executives who aren’t, get fired.
Step three: Build HSR
Step four: Take UP public again, enjoy profit from 10 years of ownership + expanding rail market.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 20th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
I’ve suggested that in the past. Just buy the company instead of buying the real estate. The idea gets shot down.
synonymouse Reply:
June 20th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Yeah, the Michael Bloombergs of America will be only too happy to have the little people, aka the low-level employees, the working class, the lumpen, the Joe Paychecks, yada yada, pony up the money to buy the UP. Just don’t use Bloomberg’s, or Steve Jobs’ or Bill Gates, or Larry Ellisons’ or Warren Buffett’s fortunes in any way shape or form. You can just increase the little people’s sales tax to baksheesh the purchase.
And then you can turn the operation over to Nathaniel Ford and the TWU. Then let’s all call in sick and then do some ot.
You fellas must be ****in crazy. The guvmint could not even handle Conrail.
The solution to the San Joaquin alignment question is easy – I-5. Free and clear.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 20th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
The guvmint could not even handle Conrail.
The government made Conrail profitable and then sold it off.
synonymouse Reply:
June 20th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
They made it potentially profitable by allowing the consolidation, rationalization, and tariff reform the ICC had blocked for years. But the government was not interested then, or now, in investing the massive sums needed to capitalize a nationwide rail network.
They(the WSJ establishment) would rather spend the money on new weapons, which they believe will save the economy. I even saw an article today from an ex-Obama staffer which panned infrastructure spending as not creating that many jobs. He went out of his way to claim that megaprojects like the Hoover Dam even in its own epoch did not produce that many jobs and that it is worse now with mechanization. And this is from an Obama guy. What I have been saying for months.
All the economic experts, Repub or Demo, are morons. It’s quantum uncertainty in spades.
TomW Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 6:13 am
Warren Buffet has already used his fortune to buy a railroad… and he’s on record that he doesn’t think he should be paying less tax (as a % of income) than his office cleaner.
Robert Lamanuzzi Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 8:10 am
Bypassing 4 million people is a non-starter.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 20th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Right, because that totally wouldn’t cause a political freak-out by the right. You’d never sell the idea past Congress and quite frankly I doubt you could get 51% of the shares sold to you. Not to mention the premium involved (31% on BNSF and I would expect rather higher).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 20th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Congress can do almost anything it wants. It could suspend trading in the stock and they buy it at a 10% premium over the closing price. Or 15% over a six month average price. Or just nationalize it.
Miles Bader Reply:
June 20th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
What doesn’t cause a political freak-out on the right, these days…?
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 12:56 am
This idea of nationalizing UP would cause a political shitstorm of sufficient magnitude to let the GOP stay in control and probably win some more in 2012, something I’d consider otherwise impossible. It is an absurdist’s idea, so politically untenable that it doesn’t even qualify as an opium dream.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 10:51 am
So is using Altamont or Tejon but that doesn’t stop anyone from endlessly gnawing on those bones.
Alai Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 12:01 am
Wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier to use eminent domain just for that section, then rent it back to them?
VBobier Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Nice idea JJJ, the Repugs in Clowngress won’t even bother the Utterly Pathetic rr, Maybe if there was an HSR friendly Democratic Majority or at least 26 more Democrats in the House of Representatives, Then this could work. But right now? forget about it.
JJJ Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Oh I agree they won’t allow it. Then again, if Obama or any democrat proposed ANYTHING, they’ll oppose it.
Kenb Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Maybe the State of California should buy the UP. Is that legal?
No way in hell Congress is going to just nationalize squat. The best way to deal with the UP is to ply it with plenty of money and play nice. Upgrade with payola UP’s 99 corridor with more tracks and grade separation at highway intersections. The UP management model is better in dealing with its unions than the politicized BART-MUNI model anyway.
Once again, boringly repetitively I know, from the top: Tejon-I-5-Tracy-LIvermore with a branch to Bako. Most for the least.
JJJ Reply:
June 20th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
So instead of investing in the company, the good old fashioned american way, and enjoying the profits from said investment…you prefer redistributing taxpayer money into the UP corporate profits and hoping they play nice? Sounds like bizarre socialism to me.
Im not saying the new owners (we, the taxpayers) should fire all the management, just the anti-passenger rail ones.
synonymouse Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 12:11 am
If the government buys it that means Pelosi(think Gloria Allred on steroids)and her unions control it. Once again let’s all call in sick and then work some gravy ot and don’t forget to bring along your I-Crap to text in the cab and then if anyone complains we’ll fill a discrimination complaint and file a lawsuit to stop federal funding and then demand 8 weeks of annual leave to match the prison guards and on and on.
Peter Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 4:00 am
Newsflash, UP is already unionized.
Oh, and the last time unions had a major stake in something, as in during the Chrysler/GM bailout, the unions did nothing of the sort that you predict.
trentbridge Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 3:47 pm
“If the government buys it that means Pelosi(think Gloria Allred on steroids)and her unions control it.”
Since the Republicans control the House of Representatives, I assume you mean when the Democrats retake the House next year or is she just a witch in your right-wing fantasy world?
What has UP’s opinion got to d with it?
They’re not actually going to run on the existing UP track are they? Those tracks wouldn’t allow the speeds and would hence need to be ripped up and totally rebuilt to become HSR. And I’m not just talking new track and ties and signalling and electrification but also fine-tuning the horizontal and vertical alignment, drainage, eliminating crossings, etc etc. So basically you’re building a new line while destroying an old one. And if you’re spending that money, why not build a new line without destroying the old one? If you don’t, then you’ve still got the problem of capacity with high speed trains jostling slow moving freights. HSR tracks will have to be in addition to existing railroad tracks and not in their place. And what could UPRR possibly object to HSR tracks being laid parallel to their own in the same corridor but otherwise separate?
Peter Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 3:58 am
Short answer? UP has strenuously objected to HSR tracks and trains coming ANYWHERE near its tracks and even ROW, because it would allegedly prevent them from accessing new customers who would be blocked from the UP tracks by the HSR ROW.
Andy M. Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 5:32 am
But doesn’t the (already existing) highway have the same effect?
Peter Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 6:20 am
Yes. Their argument still stands. It’s lame, but it still stands.
Peter Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 6:40 am
Only on one side of the UP tracks. From what I gather, HSR tracks are supposed to be on the outside, with UP tracks in the middle, and the freeway on the other side.
Owen Evans Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 7:55 am
Then what’s wrong with the obvious solution: build the HSR tracks between UP and the highway. Relocate the UP tracks further to the outside, and then build the HSR tracks on the existing UP ROW.
Joey Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 9:57 am
This is the best solution. However, UP won’t let anyone even touch it’s ROW (contrast to BNSF who has been completely cooperative in this respect).
synonymouse Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 11:20 am
And what are you going to do about the highway grade crossings along the 99 corridor?
The UP distrusts the government and for good reason. You did not see that Pelosi wants the guvmint to dictate management policy to Walmart? The stock market did; that’s why it went up after the Supreme Court decision.
If the economy collapses and rail traffic tanks then you might see a change of heart about government intervention in the UP’s affairs. But it would require a Conrail-like scenario.
99 ain’t going nowhere and the farmers should wise up to that. It is either greenfield Stilt-A-Rail or I-5.
Peter Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 11:29 am
“And what are you going to do about the highway grade crossings along the 99 corridor?”
Non-issue. You’d rebuild them, the same as has to be done in other locations, and similar to all the new grade crossings that have to be built.
As for the rest of your comment, static as usual.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 11:50 am
work it right and you get the added bonus of grade separating UP along with HSR.
synonymouse Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 12:55 pm
They already tried working it right and no go. They would end up with massive aerials along 99 instead of underpasses, which might be possible in some places with the UP’s 110mph proposal. I suggest greenfield Stilt-A-Rail will prove to be an easier sell but again much more expensive than value engineering.
I-5 is the economy and smart austerity route. It is the value engineering and value planning alternative.
Joey Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 8:27 am
UP’s 110mph
UP has never proposed anything like this, and all evidence suggests that they would be opposed to anything more than about 6 trains per day even with additional tracks.
Jon Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 3:10 pm
It’s not just the access issue. UP is shit scared that one of their freight trains will derail and spill cargo onto the HSR track, just before a train full of squishy passengers hits it at 220mph, triggering lawsuits all round. Of course, they could take reasonable steps to prevent this issue by actually doing some maintenance on their track, but that would hurt their bottom line.
All this is a perfect example of why railroads should be nationalized. If the state owned the freight track they could maintain it to a decent standard so as not to pose a threat to HSR. If UP can’t be trusted to maintain the track themselves they should not be in charge of a valuable public asset. CA should buy the UP line, rebuild it as 2 HSR + 1 conventional track, and lease trackage rights on the conventional track back to UP as necessary.
political_incorrectness Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 3:16 pm
I’m thinking a 2+2 track to utilize UIC standard DMUs or EMUs to service the smaller towns on the 99 by passenger rail. Even with proper maintenance and a crash wall, isn’t there still the possibility that a jump off the tracks could go right into the HSR ROW if it is right next to the freight tracks? I was thinking why not try to put the HSR tracks on the other side of 99 in order to prevent this sort of worst case scenario.
Peter Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Well, yes, but I didn’t list that as an issue because CAHSR is planning on a 100 foot buffer wherever possible even between BNSF and HSR tracks. The issue is the same no matter whose ROW HSR follows.
Jon Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 4:36 pm
As with the access issue, it’s not really an issue, but UP are still claiming that it is.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 5:43 pm
A horrifically bad idea. The private market works quite well for freight rail, leave it be.
Just like they do with the interstates, eh? Not to mention Murphy’s Law probably being the more important factor.
Jon Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 5:57 pm
The private market works quite well for freight rail, leave it be.
I don’t propose nationalizing all the freight companies, just the sections of right-of-way and/or track which are needed for passengers as well as freight. Like the interstates, these mainlines are too important to be left in private hands. And it’s not like we can just build new mainlines- the whole reason for this argument is that building new greenfield mainlines is very disruptive and should be avoided whenever possible.
Just like they do with the interstates, eh?
Actually, yeah. When was the last time there was a major accident due to a problem with the road surface, rather than (say) driver error or weather conditions?
I was thinking why not try to put the HSR tracks on the other side of 99 in order to prevent this sort of worst case scenario.
Because you’d need to do a load of property takes. It would basically be a greenfield alignment, more disruptive than using the BNSF right of way.
The reason using the UP right of way is so attractive is that it has space for three tracks without major property takes, but only if UP agrees to share their right of way. Putting it close to 99 also helps with noise and visual blight concerns as it’s an existing major transportation corridor.
Jon Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Dammit, that should have been a reply to the above…
(1) Synonymouse is right; I-5 is the way to go. But suppose you clap your hands over your ears and refuse to listen, what can be done with 99?
(2) Jon says there would be squishy passengers and then lawsuits, as if the lawsuit is the only problem. Those squishy passengers are dead passengers, strewn across the landscape.
(3) But suppose we build the 100-foot safety zone to protect HSR. Has anyone noticed that this approximately triples the amount of land that has to be purchased?
(4) There are just over 600 level crossings between SF and LA, and every one has to be replaced with an overpass. Why so many? Because HSR routes the train through one valley city after another, with multiple cross streets to be negotiated. Out in the farm land, you have far fewer cross streets, thus far fewer overpasses.
(5) Does anyone remember the noise issue? If the trains are noisy, adjoining residents will file damage claims. Grouse about the nanny state all you want; the fact is, these claims are meritorious and have to be paid. Why so many? Trains going through one heavily populated area after another.
(6) I’ve written earlier that I think the Farm Bureau had an understanding that the line would not go through farms, and now feel that they have been ripped off. But they have to accept that they misplaced their faith in HSRA’s competence. Now that the plan is crumbling, so does their cookie.
(7) Of course, in the I-5 corridor, the only farmers are West Side irrigators, who are big bullies whom nobody likes anyway. Take their land, please.
(6) Didn’t someone come back from Abbottabad with a report that Al Quaeda was playing around with the idea of attacking trains? Does it make anyone a bit nervous to think that the fully exposed track, with nothing but a barbed-wire fence between it and Highway 99, will extend for 200 miles or so down the valley?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Jon says there would be squishy passengers and then lawsuits, as if the lawsuit is the only problem. Those squishy passengers are dead passengers, strewn across the landscape.
they’d be equally strewn across the landscape when a truck goes out of control on I-5 and gets into the HSR ROW. The few survivors would have to wait much longer for the first responders to drive all the way out to I-5. Thanks for the rest of the FUD too.
synonymouse Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:39 am
Concrete barriers work pretty well – the chances of a truck impinging upon the hsr median are about the same as for an hsr train taking flight off an aerial and coming down upon the UP.
Now a truck could jump an overpass – that happens from time to time – but that could happen on 99 just as easily as on I-5.
Miles Bader Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 6:41 am
Even with barriers, trucks are going to continually test them — they have a insanely high rate of accidents compared to HSR (which as we all know, has an almost negligible accident rate).
I presume UP’s fear is one of their trains derailing and somehow hitting an HSR train.
But however shoddy an operation UP runs, that seems an absurd fear, as it would require an HSR train to be in exactly the right spot adjacent to a derailing UP train. Practically speaking, that’s not going to happen. [What would be much more likely, given a shoddy and dangerous UP operation, would be a UP train derailing and fouling the HSR track, causing scheduling problems for HSR.]
Jon Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Jon says there would be squishy passengers and then lawsuits, as if the lawsuit is the only problem. Those squishy passengers are dead passengers, strewn across the landscape.
That’s one hell of an extrapolation from what I wrote.
Bear in mind that these safety issue exist equally whether you chose to follow the BNSF or UP line. Either it’s an issue for both, or it’s an issue for neither, and BNSF don’t consider it to be an insurmountable problem. My point is that if UP can’t or won’t stop their trains from derailing, they shouldn’t be allowed to operate a railroad.
Miles Bader Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 6:08 pm
… and in any case, it seems extremely unlikely that a UP (or BNSF) accident would actually cause any HSR fatalities — there would need to be an HSR train in exactly the right place at the right time for that to happen. What’s really going to happen in practice, presuming they manage to derail a fright train in such an extravagant manner as to affect HSR tracks, is that they’re going to cause HSR delays until the mess is cleaned up…
So it’s not really clear to me what they’re afraid of; it smells more like “OMG, SOMETHING NEW… RESIST…RESIST…” than rational calculation.
Jon Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 6:46 pm
it smells more like “OMG, SOMETHING NEW… RESIST…RESIST…” than rational calculation.
Exactly.
Here you go Robert. Nice award from the House Budget commitee (Paul Ryan chair)…
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Budget_Boondoggle_Award-traintonowhere.pdf
D. P. Lubic Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 6:43 pm
So what? The man is an idiot. He really is one who would dismantle Social Security, take the government out of all kinds of things that you use.
Hope he goes away soon.
Jack Reply:
June 21st, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Surprised you would bring this up Morris. If this is all the budget committee can come up with that’s a huge loss for your team. No legislation to gut the project, no redirection of funds, nothing.
The FUD in this award is ridiculous… half-truths and miss-statements… makes me sick.
VBobier Reply:
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Well, Maybe Morris needs to quit hitting His head against the wall. But then He’s Morris, maybe His litter needs changing.