DesertXpress Clears Environmental Review
Time to look in on the other high speed rail project in California, DesertXpress, which received its FRA Record of Decision this week. From Vegas Inc:
The U.S. Transportation Department has given the green light to developers of DesertXpress to begin preliminary engineering for the $6 billion, 186-mile high-speed rail project that would link Las Vegas with Victorville, Calif.
The approval, known as a record of decision, is the final step in the arduous process of preparing an environmental impact statement on the controversial project.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office issued a news release Tuesday announcing the record of decision.
This “announcement is about one thing: creating good-paying jobs right here in Nevada,” the Nevada Democrat said in the release. “This major step forward for the privately sponsored DesertXpress project will create more than 32,000 jobs in Southern Nevada and boost our economy by providing another way for tourists to visit and enjoy this great state.”
One of the key issues left open in the proposed route was the alignment near the Mojave National Preserve. The vast majority of the route would follow alongside Interstate 15. But near the Preserve, just south of the Nevada border, things get tricky. The Preserve, a wildlife refuge, and a proposed solar power plant all get in the way. Alignment 4A would thread the needle, running close to I-15, but cuts through some protected areas. Alignment 4C is 6 miles longer, but avoids most of the problems (though not entirely). The FRA, after soliciting feedback from the agencies involved, prefers 4A, but only if legislative action happens to make it possible. If not, it’s 4C:
Stakeholder agencies in the area have recommended selection of Segment 4A over Segment 4C. In a February 2011 letter to FRA, the NPS acknowledged the lack of legislative authority at present to grant such a ROW, but indicated the NPS’s preference for Segment 4A because the vicinity of Segment 4A would adhere more closely to the I-15 corridor than Segment 4C and would traverse lands that have been largely disturbed, unlike portions of Segment 4C. In addition, in its April 2011 BO, the USFWS recommended that FRA select Segment 4A over Segment 4C, citing that Segment 4A would result in far fewer impacts to desert tortoise and would result in less fragmentation/disturbance of desert tortoise habitat relative to Segment 4C. Segment 4B was not chosen as part of the Selected Alternative because of the insurmountable conflict of this alternative with a solar energy project.
And here’s a map that shows this a bit more clearly:
With an ROD, DesertXpress is now the closest to construction of any true HSR project in America, including the SF-LA HSR route. But the bigger question is where DesertXpress will get the money to begin construction. They appear to be pinning their hopes on a federal loan:
DesertXpress officials said they were encouraged by the publication of the record of decision, which would enable the Federal Railroad Administration to review a $5.9 billion federal loan application.
In an emailed statement, a representative of the company said, “With the continued support of federal, state and local leaders, DesertXpress is committed to becoming our country’s first true high-speed rail line.”
It remains entirely unclear where the money for that loan would come from. Congress does not appear to be in a mood to help. Senator Harry Reid remains a big DesertXpress backer, but the project may have to look overseas for help.
DesertXpress also needs to make sure that Palmdale remains part of the SF-LA route. A Grapevine alignment that cuts out Palmdale would really screw with DesertXpress’s plans to cross the desert and link up with the California HSR route there.
Will DesertXpress break ground early next year, as they claim? We’ll see. With a ROD in hand, they are as well-positioned as any HSR project in the US to get underway.
I really hope they will break ground next year although there is no real time pressure as long as they complete work at the same time, California completes its first HSR segment.
I want to see them succeed, but their biggest challenge is the fact that Las Vegas is openly hostile to those without cars.
Have a car? Then the grand entrance (6 lane driveway!) is for you, straight into 10 free floors of parking.
Walking? Theres about 10 feet of sidewalk for you, enjoy using it with everyone else. Oh yeah, and your entrance is waaaaay over there. Dont bother trying to go through the main entrance, cab/valet only.
Dare to take a shuttle bus/van? While cabs can drop you off at the grand entrance (6 lane driveway!) vans have to go through all the back streets. Sure, you get to enjoy the bottom of the monorail, but having to wait 3 minutes for a dump truck to finish tossing around dumpsters because its a tiny alley? Ha.
Bus? You get all the benefits of driving the strip (yay traffic) with none of the upside (no bus lanes, hours as people load and pay etc). And is your stop at point B, but your destination across the street? 1/2 a mile walk is in order for you, no pedestrian crossings here (that wouldnt leave room for the 12 left turn lanes that speed cars into the 6 lane driveways)
So basically, once you go car-free in Vegas…..you dont ever again.
joe Reply:
July 13th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
When there’s a bill fold, there’s a way.
If the concern is Vegas Entertainment Industry will screw up sucking money from wallets gamblers and tourists that take rail – I doubt it.
JJJ Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Unless they plan on knocking down the strip and starting again, whats done is done.
Jon Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 12:02 am
Monorail extension to HSR station. Job done. It’s not like anyone visiting Las Vegas wants to go anywhere other than The Strip.
jimsf Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Is that monorail ever going to go to the airport? I wanted to use the monorail on my last trip but my friends refused, insisting on renting a car because the hotels all offer free valet parking. We literally drove from casino to casino…. as in next door and across the street… and parked at each one because the walk from the casinos to the street to the crosswalk to the next casino was “too far” Now first of all I think las vegas is tacky and ridiculous and built for tacky ridiculous middle americans who go there to behave in a tacky and ridiculous manner. I only go when forced. But it has got to be the ugliest, most disorganized, pedestrian unfriendly, transit unfriendly, and environmentally ( water/AC) place on the face of the earth. While Id love to see the DX succeed I can guarantee they will find the worst possible way to do it, making sure that it connects to nothing and terminates in the worst possible place on purpose.
JJJ Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Thats what Im saying, they make it difficult to walk, and offer free valet parking at 6,000 car garages. It’s insane.
The new citycenter building is the biggest slap in the face. marketed as green and urban, it’s everything but. Like all the other hotels, cars first.
I still maintain that this system will only exceed expectations if it runs into the LA area, preferably via Palmdale.
DesertXpress needs to drop the Victorville terminus and get to planning a link to the California system near Palmdale or Mojave. If DesertXpress can get a real plan to run trains thru to Los Angeles and San Francisco, there would be a strong reason to start building the Palmdale to LA segment now, as soon as the next funding becomes available, in addition to the central valley segment. Perhaps the first real HSR trains could run LA to LV.
VBobier Reply:
July 13th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
That might be in 2013, If Congress changes hands and if their willing then to commit to making loans to Transit agencies, rail projects nationwide, DesertXpress and to the CHSRA that produce income for the Government to reduce the deficit and put people back to work.
How did it come to pass that the first real hsr project in america will be from the Southern California desert to Las Vegas? Who decided it was a priority to build a full 186 miles of HSR to this modestly-sized MSA (nation’s 30th largest), without a single other population center en route? How can they possibly consider building such a line without absolute certainty that it will connect with CHSR? The whole thing smacks of politics and special interests.
More importantly, in what way is it going to benefit the California economy to smooth the way for people to spend their California-earned money in Nevada? If we have to build a desert line, a far better option would be to extend the CHSR line from Riverside out thru Palm Springs and on to Phoenix (with a metro area more than twice as large as LV’s) and Tucson. At least the economic exchange with Arizona would be more or less balanced (and there’s no question Riverside will be part of CHSR). For Nevada, the primary economic game plan is to get Californians to spend their money stupidly. What Californians need is an HSR system that will form the backbone of our economic development — not a party train.
I’m the biggest proponent of HSR there is, but one would have to be a complete HSR ideologue to support this project at this stage.
Andy M. Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 1:45 am
I guess building through a desert is much cheaper and easier than building it through suburbia fully of nimbys.
the most deserving cooridor for HSR is probably the NEC, but it’s also the place where land is most expensive and most densely populated and so actually planning anything there is going to call for armies of lawyers to sort out the red tape and compensation claims. We hear a lot about concrete versus electronics but legal and people issues are the third leg of the triangle that also has a massive price tag.
Lee M Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
This was started about 7 years ago by private concerns in Las Vegas, no real politics involved at the time. Rail from LA to LV has been on various agendas for decades, ever since the Desert Wind was discontinued. They have just been plugging along and reached this point doing just that.
trentbridge Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Hello? Tourists. Tourists from overseas are the most likely to a) lack a car and b) want to see Los Angeles and Las Vegas in one trip. Tourist buses from Hollywood and Anaheim hotels could drop them off in Victorville under contract with Desert Xpress. Las Vegas is the seventh largest airport in the US because of the tourist business.
Justin H Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 7:39 am
What’s with the sarcasm?
Peter Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 7:42 am
It’s also one of the largest airports because it is a major hub for transfers.
VBobier Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 8:52 am
Whom the state of CA would just rather not share with some other state, NV or AZ, CA wants tourists all to themselves, the attitude is hands off, these are ours, go get Yer own tourists.
As I understand it, the funding for the federal loan is available, if DesertXpress can qualify. No need for Congress to do anything. The FRA is authorized to provide up to a total of $35 billion in direct loans under the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program with repayment periods of up to 35 years. The loans are at current Treasury note rates of the same period as the RRIF loan. FRA webpage on the RRIF program: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/177.shtml
Amtrak just recently got approved for the biggest RRIF loan to date with a $562.9 million loan to cover the cost of acquiring the 70 ACS-64 electric locomotives for use on the NEC. If Congress does not come through with capital funding, Amtrak’s backup plan reportedly is to apply for RRIF loans to cover much of the cost of the Viewliner II order and the acquisition of 40 new Acela coach cars to expand the Acela consists. Amtrak may have to get RRIF loans to buy new new diesels and start on Amfleet replacements in the next few years, as Congress is not likely to directly provide the several billion dollars needed.
The RRIF loans to date have been primarily to established operators or to upgrade existing tracks (which provide the collateral). DesertXpress is a start-up which is looking for a loan to apparently pay for almost the whole thing. Don’t know the rules and statuary requirements the FRA has to work under here, but the FRA may be prudent to require that DesertXpress’s investors put down some part of the project cost, say 10% to 15% to put some skin in the game. So instead of a $5.9 billion loan, DX has to put down $600 million from the investors (the casinos could cover this easily) to get a $5.3 billion dollar loan.
Judging the viability of the project is a challenge because ultimately, the DX corridor will HAVE to connect to the CA HSR system to be successful, be in Palmdale or elsewhere. The timing and route of the CA HSR project between Bakersfield and LA adds a lot of uncertainty that could scare investors off. On the other hand, the casinos have to consider the long term effects of $4 and $5/gallon gas for car traffic and >$120 a barrel oil on airline flights for business from CA. Putting up a billion or 2 for the DX project may be cheap compared to the lost business from CA on weekends over time as oil prices trend upward over the next 5-10 years.
Andy M. Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 8:17 am
I hope you’re right
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:18 am
They’ll go bankrupt if they try and do six billion dollars on loans. That’s about 360 million per year (5 billion isn’t much better, 300 million per year then) and interest is the major killer on infrastructure project profitability. I really doubt the feasibility of any project where paying off the loans will occupy more than 50% of annual revenue for the first ten years of operations.
To be honest, I wonder if California wouldn’t be better off without DesertXPress and instead working with the Indian casinos to advertise and provide the last mile solution (as they do/did with San Manuel and Metrolink’s San Bernadino Line) while letting Vegas die off from gasoline prices and highway congestion. That would keep the dollars inside California while also, hopefully, promoting the more responsible elements of gaming without the sheer sleaze that Vegas exudes.
Beta Magellan Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:38 am
Good point about the loans and business plan.
Supposing the Authority is allowed to study a Grapevine alignment, DX might also prove detrimental to HSR itself–even if a Grapevine alignment is projected to be more cost-effective than a Palmdale one, political pressure from Nevada could force California into what could end up a more expensive, slower link between Bakersfield and LA.
Walter Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 9:50 am
In the current political and economic climate, we’re lucky to be this close to any HSR at all. It seems like the nationwide HSR effort might have to start with the private sector.
I know your idea is just a hypothetical, but I have to disagree anyway, mostly on the grounds of having a real bullet train in the United States. But it’s also important to remember that good policy shouldn’t throw a city under the bus on account of its “sleaziness.” Especially a prime business/tourism destinations that is home to a metro population of ~2 million.
political_incorrectness Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
Unfortunantely, it needs a government commitment before the private sector will toss the chips in. We have $9 billion in state bonds, $4 billion from the feds, meaning $9 billion more to cover from other sources in order for Japan to match 50% of the projected total cost. The sooner, the better.
Justin H Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 8:25 am
The goal is not to have “a real bullet train in the United States” — any real bullet train — as soon as possible. Instead, it is to build the infrastructure for a sustainable future. One day in the future, LV may have a different economic model that is not based on getting Californians to spend their money frivolously. At that point, and after more economically important HSR connections have already been built (including Inland Empire to Phoenix, and Sacramento to Oakland and San Francisco), it will probably make sense to build HSR to Las Vegas. But right now it does not. This is not to insult Las Vegas’s “sleaziness” (which in any case is just a reflection of our Californian consumer tastes), but simply to recognize the fact that an HSR line to Las Vegas is a big net minus on the sustainable development of our state.
Alan F Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
I’m struck by the attitudes that casinos are the only thing in Vegas. While Vegas might not be more than a modest desert town without the Hoover Dam and the casino & entertainment industry that popped up in the 1950s, it has a fair amount of industrial, high tech, DOD related business activity. Living in the east, it has been some years since I’ve been to Vegas. But in the 80s and 90s I made a number of business trips to Vegas (and places outside of Vegas) from the east as a DOD contractor. None of these trips were to visit the casinos (although we did of course) or to attend conventions. Looking up the population numbers, Vegas now has a urban population of 1.3 million and a metro region population of 1.9 million. I gather a big chunk of the population are retirees.
Of course, the major driver behind the DX project is to get people from CA to the Vegas casinos and all the related entertainment businesses. Vegas has taken a huge hit in the wake of the crash of 2008, mostly because the city grew way too fast. But there is a significant sized population there with a lot of non-gaming industry businesses that would use HSR for business and personal travel in both directions. That Vegas may get the first real HSR service in the US. even only partway to the ultimate goal of connecting to LA, is just the result of a unusual set of circumstances. The open desert with few NIMBYs in the way is a significant part of it.
Justin H Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 8:31 am
LV’s metro region is 1.9 million; Phoenix’s is 4.2 million. If we’re going to build across the state line, it should be to Phoenix, extending from the Inland Empire out thru Palm Springs.
I appreciate your multiple well-informed comments.
Alan F Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 8:12 am
I think an extension of the HSR system to Phoenix (via Palm Springs) is going to eventually happen after if/when the Inland Empire route to San Diego is built. Checking the map, Phoenix is around 320 miles from Riverside CA. So an extension is going to cost somewhere in the range $11 to, what, $15 billion in current or near term dollars? Just going to have to wait until there is more interest in Arizona for a LA to Phoenix HSR route which connects to the CA HSR system, once the CA HSR system starts operation over it’s initial subsegment.
Meanwhile, DesertXpress and their backers have spent the time and money to do the studies and generate the ton of documents needed for a preliminary design and FEIS. Look at the huge collection of documents at the FRA webpage for the DX project: http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/freight/1703.shtml. So Vegas to Victorville may be the first HSR line up and running in the west.
Justin H Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Thanks for this information. Regarding the distance to Phoenix, I imagine the last stop in California would be at Indio, significantly closer than Riverside. Also, looking at the terrain, I wouldn’t be surprised if a line to Phoenix were no much more expensive to build than the DX (not a DX to Victorville, but one connecting all the way to Palmdale or IE). What do you think?
Alan F Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 9:16 am
Depends on how much of the I-10 ROW could be used for a Riverside to Palm Springs to Phoenix HSR line. The DX project will be using the median strip of I-15 for a substantial part of the route which lowers the cost considerably. checking Google earth, the median strip on I-10 is pretty wide in some parts, too narrow in others. An interstate was designed to meet highway specifications for grade and turns. A HSR line might be able to steeper grades, but a sharp bend in a highway may not be ok for a HSR line if you want to keep the speed at 180 or 220 mph.
Until someone does a first level feasibility study on a Riverside to Palm Springs to Phoenix HSR, lot of unknowns in what it might cost.
Justin H Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Thank you Alan, you’re awesome.
Justin H Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 8:08 am
Paulus Magnus, you are right, California would be better off severing all ties with Las Vegas. See my other two comments herein.
OT: Have there been any interesting revelations at the Board meeting so far?
What happened to the original $4 billion in private funding towards Desert Express, http://www.grist.org/transportation/2011-02-24-high-speed-train-to-las-vegas-probably-a-better-use-of-your-mone
I love visiting Las Vegas and will take the train once it goes from downtown LA to Las Vegas. BUt we should keep our goal priorities in order. The first goal is to upgrade or build initial HSR lines in our largest and/or fastest growing corridors that will form the backbone of a future Interstate HSR System. The second and concurrent goal is to build jobs. On that basis, USDOT grant or loan funding for HSR should be prioritized:
1. Northeast Corridor
2. California (San Francisco-San Jose-BakersfieldPalmdale-LA-Anaheim
3. Milwaukee-Chicago-St. Louis
4. DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Greensboro-Charlotte
5. Chicago-Kalamazoo-Detroit
6. Portland-Seattle-Vancouver
Then
7. Las Vegas-Barstow-Palmdale-Los Angeles
Since the line must go to Los Angeles, it still doesn’t make sense to detour from Barstow down to Victorville, then over to Palmdale. The line will draw far more people by shaving 20 minutes from the more direct route skipping Victorville.
Matthew B. Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 4:23 am
I think the Victorville location is important to provide better access to the 4 million people in the Inland Empire. They at least might be more likely to drive over the Cajon pass to Victorville than to Union Station even after the LA connection would be built. Furthermore, this enables DesertXpress to start collecting some revenue before the LA connection is complete.
Nathanael Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Top priority should really be NY-Chicago, but nobody seems to be thinking in those terms. Except me. :-) After that SF-LA.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
NYC-CHI is too long to be a competitive corridor.
Kenb Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 12:00 am
This route includes Chi – Clev , Chi – Det. (spur from Toledo) Chi – Pitt , Clev – Pitt , Pitt – Phil , Pitt – NY. Not just Chi – NY. It would be smart to build it as one large project.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 12:56 am
It’s at the upper end, but still should be fine. The problem is that it’s a long route, i.e. expensive to build. I’d rather start from Northeastern and Midwestern networks and join them later.
Alan F Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 9:07 am
China just opened the 819 mile Beijing-Shanghai HSR line which is a similar distance to NYC to Chicago. Now they may have built it too quickly, cutting too many corners and may be running the trains at reduced speeds to save on power, but they did build it.
I agree with the other posts that in the US we are not going to see a single NYC to Chicago HSR project. It would only happen in segments. A mid-West Chicago to Fort Wayne to Toledo to Cleveland HSR line might eventually get connected to a eastern NYC to Philly to Pittsburgh corridor. And/or perhaps via Erie PA to a Buffalo to Rochester to Albany to NYC HSR corridor over the old Water Level route. This will have some drawbacks because it won’t be as fast as a single coordinated Chi-NYC HSR project, even one that goes through the same cities, because the decision makers for each project will make compromises on trip times vs cost for their corridor segment that will hurt overall end to end trip time.
As for too long to be competitive, if the trip time is 6 hours, people, including business travelers, will take it. I think that in 10 to 20 years, airline fares will expensive enough that a HSR trip from NYC to Chicago will be quite competitive for even well off business travelers.
Justin H Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 9:39 am
I completely agree with that last part. Not only will airline fares keep getting more expensive, but cities will become reengineered over time to take advantage of the existence of HSR – think of how cities redeveloped themselves after the interstate system was built. People’s starting and ending points will be close to HSR stations and they will opt for the bullet train ride even over great distances, for general comfort and convenience.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 11:33 am
A piecemeal NY-Chicago line using either the Empire or Keystone route could be done in about 5 hours, which is just on the edge of competitive. Beijing-Shanghai covers a similar distance in 4:55, with the 300 km/h speed restriction. And Tokyo-Fukuoka is about 5 hours, but nearly everyone flies (though, domestic flying is more convenient in Japan than in the US). The draw would be the plethora of intermediate markets – Philly-Chicago, New York-Detroit, and so on.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 16th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Rochester-Toledo is never going to be a big market but if there’s a “local” passing through both why not? And don’t forget things like Milwaukee-Cleveland or Cleveland-DC…. Utica-Erie….
The projected cost for the DX to Victorville is $6 billion for a ~186 mile route. That works out to around $32 million /mile. An extension to Palmdale would be about 50 miles, so let’s ballpark the cost at $1.5 billion, give or take.
One question is how many people who live north of LA in the valley, Simi Valley, Ventura County take rt. 14 through the mountains, go by Palmdale and then eastward to VV and I-15 when driving to Vegas? An extension to Palmdale might get some of that traffic.
If the Antelope valley Metrolink line can be upgraded for a modest amount of money, enough to be able to run a few scheduled connecting trains, then the question is whether DX (provided of course it gets off the ground at all) would find it worthwhile to extend to Palmdale. They would have to run to the existing Palmdale Metrolink station which might be a problem, but the question is whether they might do that to get additional car traffic, pay Metrolink for connecting train service to LA, while waiting for the CA HSR route from Bakersfield to LA to get built.
Of course, this is all dependent on CA HSR making a decision on the Bakersfield to LA route and, possibly even more difficult, getting the funding in place to start construction.
jimsf Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
how on god’s green earth does it wind up costing 1.5 billion dollars to lay 50 miles of railroad track across flat barren sand? 1.5B? really for what? Are we laying diamond encrusted 24kgold rails on top of Italian marble ties? Time to call in the Chinese, they’ll have id done in time for dinner for about $39.95 and throw in some free egg rolls.
I ll bet it doesnt cost 1.5 billion to send the space shuttle 50 miles.
Matthew B. Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 4:26 am
Even if CAHSR goes via I5, it would be interesting to see if a solution could be arranged to do a hybrid Metrolink/DesertXpress route from Palmdale to LAUS. Of course, the ideal would be to have a one seat ride, even if it was a bit slower.
Peter Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
The $6 billion is to build 186 miles of track, including a lot of viaducts and tunnels, plus two stations. You can’t simply extrapolate from that number.
Alan F Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
That is why I used $1.5 billion as a “ballpark” figure. While it is likely on the high side, it would include 1 new station, unknown ROW acquisition costs, possibly an additional layover yard. If we could build 50 miles of new electrified 150-160 mph tracks from scratch in the east for only $1.5 billion, Amtrak and the state DOTs would probably faint.
jimsf Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I dont understand where that money goes. its concrete ties and some welded rail and a machine that lays the whole thing at once.
AlanF Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
It is more than that. This is a fully grade separated HSR line. Which means either flyovers of roads, building or modifying road bridges to go over the tracks, fencing to keep people / idiots from walking across the tracks in some stretches, drainage system, overhead catenary lines, power substations, and so on. All adds up. DX may be able to cut costs by using the High Desert Corridor highway ROW, but then they end up having to wait on that project to complete the EIS process and get started on construction.
Peter Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Which is ok, since there’s no point in connecting to Palmdale until CAHSR has connected through Palmdale to LA, anyway.
Matthew B. Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 4:28 am
I think there are significant arroyos on the north side of the San Gabriel mountains. The tracks have to be built to withstand flash floods.
Alon Levy Reply:
July 15th, 2011 at 1:05 am
Even just grading the land to the exacting specs of HSR is expensive. The SNCF proposals for HSR in the US include a cost breakdown, and even on relatively simple lines, e.g. Texas, the basic structures (trackbed, grade separations, a few viaducts and tunnels) is more than two thirds the total infrastructure cost. The Midwest HSR Association’s own study comes up with a slightly lower figure, but still more than half.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Cost guesstimate for Albany to Montreal was 4 billion. Roughly 200 miles. Another billion to electrify it.
AlanF Reply:
July 14th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
First rule about guess estimates is that they are almost always much less than what it will actually cost. Use a 3x factor if is it a DOD project.
The antelope valley (Palmdale/Lancaster) feels it has been “promised” HSR service as a part of the plan. If the Grapevine route is selected, it likely will be necessary to upgrade the Metrolink route to Palmdale as well, perhaps just to allow 110 mph speeds (which would permit some grade crossings and shared use of tracks by Metrolink trains) between Santa Clarita and Palmdale. If DesertXpress trains can go a max of 150 mph between LV and Palmdale, and average 80 mph from Palmdale to Los Angeles, the total trip time would still be under 3 hours, competitive with flying and clearly better than driving.
Certainly, a new alignment which could allow speeds of 150 mph between Palmdale and Santa Clarita would be better and would lead to higher ridership, but conventional speeds in that section are acceptable if the California system has to use the Grapevine / Tejon route.
Earlier comments have clarified that the investment behind the Desert Express is from casino interests. I’m all for having private investment in HSR, but this line is clearly not in the public interest (for Californians). It is meant by its investors to be one long siphon to suck money from California’s economy into Nevada’s casinos. I invite the author of this blog to reconsider his opinion and take a stand against this line, which seems to be unjustly benefiting from our desperation to get HSR started. The primary goal for CHSR is to serve as the backbone for sustainable economic development in our state; the Desert Express line — built to encourage foolish spending in another state — runs counter to that goal. This line is not going to make people say, “I want HSR too!”; it’s going to make us all look like fools.
It will look foolish if the connection to the CAHSR never gets built. If it does then it also makes it easier for tourists to get to California locations.