Walking the High Speed Rail Route
“Will it be good for Bakersfield? Oh absolutely. Will it be good for the San Joaquin Valley? Absolutely. Will it be good for California? Absolutely. Do we need it? We needed this 30 years ago.”
So begins Day 14 of an amazing journey. Three young men from Hanford – Travis and Adam Souza and Nate Yockey – have been walking the length of the California high speed rail route every day since they left Los Angeles on August 29. Their website is We Make the Road by Walking and it is, as far as I am concerned, the best thing produced so far about the California high speed rail project. That includes this blog.
Here’s how they introduce their project:
From the 29th of August two of my brothers and I will be walking the entirety of the proposed California High Speed Rail route from Los Angeles, finishing in San Francisco on the 30th of September. At ground level and walking pace we will, in a way, be drawing a line across California where a variety of people, places and practices converge. We will be documenting and accumulating materials from this engagement. Since the route connects California’s largest cities through most of its agricultural and rural places the rail’s imminent construction has generated much discussion revealing the complex interconnectedness of geography, work, leisure, economics, farming, food, ecology, sustainability, urban and rural culture, and more besides. We will be spending much of our time speaking to farmers who will be affected, asking them for their hospitality in letting us camp on their land for the night. Also, many of these issues will be addressed in public discussions and by a few others who will walk parts of our journey with us in a discourse shaped by our immediate environments/landscapes/locale.
This is exactly the kind of thing that California needs as we work out the important details of how to build high speed rail. I had entertained the idea of making a much briefer trip along the route, via train and bus, in early 2009. But work obligations got in the way and ultimately I invested my time into building this blog. I spend a lot of time focused on the politics, the policies, and the media narratives around HSR, but someone needed to go out and see what was being said out there in the cities and towns along the route. These three men have done that, and it’s a must-watch.
The Hanford Sentinel has an excellent feature on the three walkers:
All born in Hanford, Travis and Adam grew up in Reedley, while Nate was raised in Corcoran and Fresno.
Their family still owns 80 acres of farmland on Fargo Avenue between 7 1/2 and 8 1/2 avenues that their great-great grandmother, who came from the Azores, started farming about 100 years ago. The land is currently leased out.
“I have a connection to this place,” Travis said. “But my wife and I live in the city, and I enjoy it there. So I was torn between two different ways of life. I thought it was fitting with the high-speed rail project between two cities and the communities in between.”…
Their mother said she was relieved to see her sons safe as well as proud of their undertaking.
“I’m proud of them because it’s important,” said Veiga-Yockey, a fourth-grade teacher at Kings River School in Kingsburg who grew up in Hanford and now lives in Reedley. “Their motive is to give a voice to those who are going to be affected by the high-speed rail.”
She says the 80 acres of farmland is a family legacy, and she wants it kept intact for the future generations.
“Many of the people and I are not necessarily against high speed rail, but we feel the (California High-Speed Rail) Authority has not really listened to the people,” she said. “Let’s do this right. It’s pretty hard to give up and sacrifice your life and land when you don’t feel like you’re listened to. And that’s what I see.”
Now I would obviously quibble with that last part – the Authority is listening to everyone, but in particular the majority of Californians who voted for the project. It’s their voice that comes first. Still, we who support high speed rail are not at all indifferent to the thoughts, ideas and concerns being voiced in places like Kings County.
By bringing the voices and sights of the route that will become California high speed rail, these three are doing Californians and HSR supporters a big service. We need to see, and we need to hear, what they are showing us.
Once they arrive in San Francisco next week, they’ll make a public presentation of their tour. It’ll be at Timken Lecture Hall on the campus of California College of the Arts, Friday, September 30, 2011, 7:00–9:00 pm. If you’re in the Bay Area, it will be worth attending.
I was wondering, what if they cross at Altamont instead of Pacheco? :)
This walk is awesome.
Donk Reply:
September 19th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
I hope they don’t try to walk thru PAMPA. Better go through Oakland instead.
El Camino Rail
This whole nonsense of HSR to empty our pockets and give it to the big lobby groups. It is impractical, the new generation supports it because they do not know better. We as a nation are not suited for these expensive projects to drive us broke. In Europe 99% of rail systems are broke, they only work because they tax their population to pay for it. In Germany they have protection for their rail system,. You cannot run a private BUS service between two points where DBAHN serves, so they kill competition to save their rail system. This was is another pipe dream that is going to go nowhere other then taking monies from taxpayers pockets to pay for it. Invest in better smart highway systems using smart technologies rather then antiquated pipe dream of a rail system
Donk Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:00 am
“What you’ve just said … is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” – Principal from Billy Madison
J. Wong Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:00 am
The age of the automobile is over. Get over it. The new generation does know better. It is very practical, and they will ride the train, and it will pay for itself.
Henry Porter Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
If there was any hope that this boondoggle could pay for itself, this whole debate wouldn’t be happening. Some entrepreneur would have stepped up to the plate band built it. The “new generation” would ride it only because taxpayers would subsidize it. If they had to pay the full actual cost, they wouldn’t be able to ride it.
Get real, Wong!
David Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:21 am
Since Paul obviously doesn’t read this blog, he should be aware that non-compete contracts happen over here too, including one recently in uber-conservative Orange County, which imposed sanctions on anything competing with a private toll road.
Alex M. Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:55 am
I was going to spend some time refuting all the points you made but then I realized that you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Paul in PA is obviously a troll. Answering this kind of post will render this blog very boring.
I think any post that seems to be the product of a one-neuron brain should be ignored.
Ericmarseille Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:57 am
You know what? In french culture there’s a wonderful spoof of a noir film about two ex-gangsters who have to protect against their will a whiny, nagging, insufferable crook ; the only way they can stand this ordeal is to smack him all through the picture ; in one cult scene, big man Michel Constantin turns to Lino Ventura in total weariness and utters : ” You turn, I’m discouraged”
You know what? When I read Paul in PA’s comment on Europe’s rail systems I felt just like : “Your turn, I’m discouraged”.
In case some people would be interested in cross-cultural exchanges, here’s the scene :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7RYTOIh8K8&feature=related
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 10:18 am
And in America, 99% of road systems are broke, they only work because they tax their population to pay for it.
Henry Porter Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
You fail to take benefits into consideration. The average American takes four trips/day on a road and one trip every 11 years. Roads bolster our economy. Passenger rail drains it.
Robert writes, “Now I would obviously quibble with that last part – the Authority is listening to everyone, but in particular the majority of Californians who voted for the project.”
Seriously? That’s like saying I’ll listen to anyone, but in particular people who like what I say. You can do that as a blogger, but the Authority as a state agency cannot get away with not particularly listening to 48% of the people.
Define “everyone”.
Because what you’re implying is that Hanford is no one. And Bakersfield is no one. And Burlingame. And Menlo Park/Atherton/Palo Alto. And Gilroy. And Chowchilla. And Livermore. And Redwood City. And farmers.
And all these people are no one.
“No one is answering our questions” is the most common complaint that Assembly Member David Valadao, R-Hanford, said he gets from Kings County residents.
Even the Authority’s own Chair Pringle had problems getting his city of Anaheim to be listened to. “I am preparing for the FIRST community meeting in my city on Wednesday,” Pringle wrote on Jan. 18. “How a project of this size could ever move this far without EVER talking to the public is inconceivable!”
The FRA agrees with Pringle and says small businesses aren’t be listened to, either.
Federal authorities on Thursday ordered California’s high-speed rail planners to do better at reaching out to small and minority-owned businesses or risk losing billions of dollars.
If you backtrack and say no, no, all these people are someone, then define “listening” because your definition is not a common one.
Brian Stanke Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 8:10 am
Hanford and Visalia asked for the station to be out of town between the two cities. The Authority listened and provided. Now farmers are upset that the Authority listened to the cities.
Bakersfield insisted it wanted a station downtown (a good idea we agree with). The Authority listened. Now the City Manager is upset that Authority listened to him/his predecessor.
Palo Alto insisted the train come through their town. Rep. Eshoo threaten the federal funding if it didn’t. The Authority listened. Now the same city council is upset and dismayed that the Authority listened and did as they asked.
Half of the Authority’s problems seem to stem from listening and giving people what they claim to want, only to get it thrown back in their face.
peninsula Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 8:24 am
“Palo Alto insisted the train come through their town. Rep. Eshoo threaten the federal funding if it didn’t. The Authority listened. Now the same city council is upset and dismayed that the Authority listened and did as they asked.”
When was this- do you have any news reports you can cite? Did this happen in public meetings? When? Any links? Because either you’re making it up. OR the authority is ‘listening’ in backroom dealings, and finding out that the person they make a deal with has no power to enforce it on the people. And they’re surprised. “Bakersfield” insisted? Who is Bakersfield? Was there a vote in Bakersfield? When?
Brian Stanke Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:25 am
The Eshoo, Honda et. al. letter is here:
http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=310959&keyword=&phrase=&contain=
Bakersfield Mayor and Kern County strongly supported a downtown station in 2002:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/198/b6eff51f-2bdc-4b0f-857b-f0b79457e2a0.pdf
After several years of study:
http://www.kerncog.org/powerpoint/planning/04bakhsrterm.ppt
peninsula Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 11:31 am
still looking for the part where 1) PALO ALTO insisted the train come through their town, and 2) ESCHOO THREATENED. Where and When?
Brian Stanke Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Read the letter: “The impact the Altamont Pass would have on the environment could well make us rethink our support of any federal funding for the project.”
You are free to use google and read the 2008 EIR comments yourself. I am not your research assistant.
Arthur Dent Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Oh! Bakersfield spoke in 2002. Well that changes everything. Tell the people in Bakersfield and Kern County to go home and be quiet because they were spoken for back in 2001 and 2002. (Were the 3 hikers even voting age back then?)
Tell the people on the peninsula that they were spoken for in 2007 by Eshoo-Honda-Lofgren-Farr-Lantos and that they should sit down and zip it, too.
This is like a winner-takes-all coin toss where you keep flipping until your side comes up and then calling it a game.
William Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Yes, this is how voting works, too bad you don’t like it. We cannot have votes on every minute details. If we do, nothing gets done, or doing nothing is that what you prefer?
The nay-sayers keep focusing on the short-term impacts of the HSR project, while ignoring long term benefits to the state and the nation. Yes, building HSR will have negative impact to few, but they will be mitigated and compensated for that.
Arthur Dent Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
The topic is whether the authority is doing an adequate job of listening to stakeholders. We’re discussing how implementation of a statewide project works, not voting.
Travis D Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
What your asking for is that the authority completely throw out all their plans every time someone changes their mind. And that’s insane. Bakersfield (or any of the other places mentioned) had a democratically elected government in 2002 and it executed it’s authority to make a request. Because it was early in the planning game that request could be accommodated.
Not to mention it was smart. Having their station downtown will benefit them in the long run. Likewise Palo Alto and Hanford will benefit in the long run from HSR as well.
It’s just too bad shortsighted IDIOTS want to undo it all now.
Arthur Dent Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
I’m not asking for anything. I’m pointing out the scores of people who are vehemently disagreeing with Robert’s comment that the HSRA is “listening to everyone”. When the CEO & Chairman acknowledge there’s a problem, that’s a clear indication that there is indeed a problem. And what about Jeff Barker, the no-longer Dep Dir of Communications. Only Robert, Brian and a few holdouts still cling to the “Problem? What problem?” message.
To J. Wong: part of listening is showing up. If you don’t inform people of what’s to happen to them, there’s not
Arthur Dent Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
… much opportunity for the public to speak up, let alone be listened to.
J. Wong Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
“The topic is whether the authority is doing an adequate job of listening to stakeholders.”
Except you seem to be saying that the authority is not listening because they aren’t
agreeing with everything the naysayers want. NIMBY’s on the peninsula say they want HSR to be tunneled, which is too expensive, and then when the authority says no, says HSR is too expensive. The authority is not going to satisfy everyone with the HSR plan. That’s life. Other stakeholders in the same area as the naysayers do agree with the plans.
Brian Stanke Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Here is the unanimous Palo Alto endorsement of Prop 1A a good ten months after the decision picking Pacheco was made.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=13684
Obviously the city no longer advertises this endorsement as it would interfere with their tunnel-or-nothing negotiating stance.
peninsula Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 11:35 am
This letter prefaces with – where the train will run and whether it will run will be for further disussion, environmental study, and policy discussion, but the bond for HSR is important so that California can get HSR.
(And by the way, still in the era of Kopp Diridon lying bald face to City Councils up and down the Peninsula about no decisions having been made)
So again, where again is Palo Alto INSISTING the train run through Palo Alto?
Some individual politicians in some backrooms perhaps?
Travis D Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Do the people of Palo Alto want a productive future? Because that will be delivered by having the train run through the city. Or do they really want to condemn themselves to a future dystopia because they are sooooo scared about the prospect of short term property value drops only while construction is underway.
Palo Alto should be begging for the train. That they are not, at this point, is as irrational as someone insisting on drinking nothing but bleach. Unless their goal is suicide they should not be doing it.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Look, I’m pro-hsr, but what in the world are you smoking?
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
I was going to comment, too, but your comment says it all.
joe Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
He’s right. Leland Stanford is flipping in his grave.
What is the economic anchor of Palo Alto’s million dollar bungalows? It is not Stanford’s faculty and staff driving up housing costs.
It’s the historical legacy that the town is anchored by rail which allows workers access to the town and has grade separations – under passes – to let people in and out quickly.
I would LOVE to see HSR bypass Palo Alto and watch the property values stagnate as companies and talent slowly relocated to lower cost areas with better transportation.
I’ve seen Mountain View, since 1990, rebuilt the downtown, and over 20 years, become the de facto center of SV startups. It once was but ain’t Palo Alto anymore.
Plao Alto isn’t going to collapse but the city is already 2nd fiddle for SV.
Steve Jobs nearly setup Apple in S San Jose’s Coyote Valley. HSR would anchor that area and hipster play-land SF.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:12 am
Brian,
I was at the board meeting where it was decided on the out of town Hanford station. The logic the engineers used was:
1) Hanford didn’t want it. They didn’t want it in town, they didn’t want it out of town. They did not want it in a box, they did not want it with fox. You get the idea.
2) Visalia wanted it. In town, out of town, under town, over town. You get the idea.
The Authority had decided against a 99 route which meant Visalia couldn’t get it. By the engineers logic, a station outside of Hanford would come closest to giving Visalia a station.
Now there is of course the question of why you are doing a station there to begin with. This http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/79/205/40b85423-4908-4f55-9c30-befac9c0772e.pdf is the analysis the Authority did which basically says that if people from Visalia are willing to drive to Hanford to take the train, they will be willing to drive to Fresno and that having a stop in Hanford will add to trip towns for everyone not on an express.
Elizabeth Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:13 am
last sentence trip times, not towns
Brian Stanke Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:57 am
So you are advocating that there be no station?
That would upset Tulare County cities but not solve Kings County’s objections. How would you solve their concerns? By adding billions to the project costs to go along 99?
Of course everyone here knows your real answer is to kill the HSR project, even if the peer review shows their model is good (when you FUDed about its “dangerous” results).
Elizabeth Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
I am explaining the logic the Authority used to select a greenfields station and just paraphrasing a CHSRA report on why a Hanford station doesn’t necessarily make sense.
Our only stance would be that there should be an analysis of the costs and benefits of having a station there.
Howard Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Built a downtown Madera High Speed Train station instead of a greenfield Hanford station if the City of Hanford and Kings County do not want a High Speed Train station. The tracks will run right through downtown Madera anyway and Madera has more population than Hanford. A Madera station is also temporarily serves Merced without extra track.
Howard Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
If the hybrid alignment is chosen a Madera Amtack high speed train station (instead of Hanford) would allow a direct transfer between San Joaquin’s and the California High Speed Train without needing to build track all the way north to Merced.
joe Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
If one thinks doubling the Visalia travel distance from 20 to 45 miles into with an urban Fresno is okay then I for one would like to bypass Palo Alto / Redwood City HSR stop and keep San Jose, SFO and SF. PAMPA residents can afford to drive and park at San Jose or SFO. It’s cost effective no?
Andrew Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
@Elizabeth – “if people from Visalia are willing to drive to Hanford to take the train, they will be willing to drive to Fresno”. By the same logic, if they are willing to go 5 miles to a station out on 99, then they should be willing to go 15 to a station east of Hanford. Or take a local train using the old cross-valley line (whose intersection with HSR is the planned location for Kings-Tulare Station). The line would feed hsr, connect nearly all the major Kings-Tulare communities and create a vibrant regional hub in downtown Visalia.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Meh, just run a bus timed with HSR arrivals and departures.
Andrew Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Buses work fine as feeders, but not for promoting infill, concentrating people in walkable neighborhoods, etc. HSR+bus = more sprawl.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Neither does American-style rail.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
New American style rail. Drop somebody from the Sunbelt down at a suburban station somewhere in teh Northeast and they’ll think they are downtown… because they are… With some exceptions like Metropark and Route 128.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
I would suggest a bus that only stops in downtown Hanford (maybe at the south end of the Amtrak station), at the HSR station, maybe one stop on the west side of Visalia, the Visalia bus depot, and maybe a stop in downtown Visalia.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Basically, BRT, but without the dedicated guideway (which I doubt would be necessary traffic-wise).
datacruncher Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Brian, not quite right as Elizabeth said. Visalia wanted it as close to the city as it could be. With the proposed 99 route, Visalia was willing to donate city owned land for a station near the 99/198 interchange since its downtown is located 5 miles off 99 and the tracks would not pass thru downtown Visalia.
When the route was moved into Kings County and Hanford opposed a downtown Hanford station the proposed site was moved to a greenfield site between the 2 cities.
Besides HSR, Visalia has also been seeking a public university campus for over a decade or two. It lost the new UC competition to Merced. But Visalia is already pushing to be home to the next CSU or Cal Poly campus when the state expands higher ed again.
Brian Stanke Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Actually the back and forth started in the early 90′s with Dan Leavitt’s academic papers on HSR while at Berkeley (available online) but I skipped to the last decision made in my blog comment. Brevity and all.
Off topic, but perhaps of interest: commentary on schedule padding:
http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/schedule-padding-its-a-bit-more-complicated-than-that/
One of the secondary commentors notes that padding has always been around. What may be interesting to ask is how much might be in individual systems. We know low expectations have lead to sometimes considerable padding in the US and Great Britain; how much is in the schedules of France, Germany, and Japan, and how different is the padding between HSR and conventional services?
swing hanger Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 6:43 am
In Japan, all trains (passenger and freight) are run according to a “daiya” or string diagram, with times measured down to 15 second increments (and in the case of busy commuter and metro lines in Tokyo, 10 or even 5 seconds). Padding may exist on more leisurely services, but I reckon are more a consequence of operational needs (to let faster trains pass when sharing a line, or to allow a decent arrival time for an overnight train, for example) rather than allowing time to make up delays. Trains never arrive early, they are on-time (which is most of time) or late (usually a few minutes). The times given on the string diagrams are exactly the same as the public timetable, and in fact the string diagrams are published and available in the railfan magazines. BTW the average delay on the Tokaido Shinkansen was 30 seconds in 2008, which includes delays caused by typhoons and other acts of nature.
TomW Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 7:35 am
Flip side: the train doors will close exactly on time, even if you are 30cm away and running. The train must arrive on time, even if that means forces some people to take the next train.
swing hanger Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 8:18 am
Well, the next train will be only 2 minutes later, so no big deal.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
In Switzerland – at least in Zurich – they add 7% to the technical running time.
francis Reply:
September 21st, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Switzerland coordinates its timetables to make changing trains easy – many routes will all pull into a central station at around the same time. Thus there’s a lot of padding since a 20km route and a 30km route might both need to be 1 hour of running time.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
SNCF doesn’t pad timetables, as is the current practice in Britain. It was OK when all trains were on time, which is no longer the case. Punctuality has steadlily deteriorated these last 10 years and is now only 90% (a train is considered on time if less than 5mn late). The reasons:
- lack of investment from the state. Some catenaries are 30 years old and should be replaced.
- saturation of Paris stations and the trunk line south of Paris (should be 4 tracks on 150km).
- working shifts’ schedules too tight, causing total disorganization at the least incident.
We’d love to hear your thoughts on Zócalo’s latest piece on California’s proposed high-speed rail system, “Why Not Blow $9 Billion on a Cool Train?”
http://zocalopublicsquare.org/thepublicsquare/2011/09/19/why-not-blow-9-billion-on-a-cool-train/read/nexus/
Paulus Magnus Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
That article is complete and utter shit, which isn’t surprising for someone on the Peninsula.
Demand is already extant and proven. Air travel between cities connected by the full CAHSR system, as of 2010, consists of 14.46 million passengers which should increase to about 17.9 million by 2030 given current population estimates. Rail travel between Los Angeles and San Diego sees about five million per year between Coaster, Metrolink, and the Pacific Surfliner; road travel is about 250-300,000 persons per day. Toss in Las Vegas and there’s another five million air trips and about as many road trips.
No such technology has reached TRL 6 yet. In fact, I don’t think anything’s even hit 3. Maglev is far more expensive than conventional rail and not compatible with our existing rail infrastructure, but that’s the only contender.
And that’s not happened (cue synonymouse and Richard of course, but let’s consider the context folks), so what’s the issue?
While CAHSRA has probably underestimated the cost somewhat, his preferred alternative, CC-HSR, is completely out of the ballpark on their cost estimates. Their high estimates are based on not a single additional penny of Federal funding for the system, the state assuming all debt for the system, the system not meeting sufficient ridership and revenue to run an operational profit (an event that would be quite unique in all the world), and imputing all the debt service requirements to HSR (call me back when they get around to doing that for the highways which have manifestly failed to pay for their construction costs).
And what, pray tell, is high speed rail, if not part of the state’s transportation infrastructure?
Joe Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Silver Streak? A 1976 cultural reference. How god awful but appropriate an ending to that crayon essay.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
There was also a movie in the 1930s with the same name, starring the original Burlington Zephyr. Better movie in my opinion, although as a steam fan, I prefer “Danger Lights.”
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Still a fun movie from 1930, even in spite of the ridiculous undercranking of the camera to increase the sensation of speed at the end. And the character of the hobo is a classic, with the best lines in the whole thing. . .”The trouble with labor is the work connected with it.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUnVXqMiUWQ
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
“Do not funnel huge amounts of public money into private hands on the basis of only promises of benefits. Remember to calculate capital costs accurately.”
Sounds like a case for government operation for public benefit.
“And if the French, Japanese, and Chinese can make it work, certainly Californians can make it work.
“This is a tough job for an historian. I need help. I may need my brother, the therapist. Because California is not France, Japan, or China.”
So Americans are so stupid we can’t make it work here, provided certain people ranging from Repugnant politicians to overpaid consultants get out of the way?
He touches on the global warming biz, but what about the cost of oil imports, what about the cost of resource wars? That’s going on now.
Why the false choice between schools, local transit, and HSR? We need them all!
ericmarseille Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Aaaaw…Always, always the same lame, twisted arguments :
- California is neither France nor japan nor Spain nor etc. ; California = special (read “superior”)
- The article never stops contrasting car to HSR, just like usual in the US media, when it is plane the most pertinent competitor to HSR
- This allows the HSR deniers and foes to create a sentiment in the most ignorant part of the public that it’s either train or car ownership in the long term ; how many times did I read that kind of comments : ” the Europeans ride trains because they don’t have cars”
You can feel the subliminal equation : HSR=European=Socialist=No more cars ; the author himself fuels the confusion by writing that the demise of private cars is inevitable
- That old lie about HSR’s profitability ; it takes two forms ; the totally ignorant, who pretend that it is never, nowhere profitable, the liars on purpose, who pretend that no line ever has paid for itself totally, construction included.
- THAT TEDIOUS, TIRESOME, AND DELIBERARETLY FUELED CONFUSION BETWEEN LIGHT RAIL AND HSR that you can feel all through the article ; did you notice? THE PICTURE IS OF A TER, it says all!
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
- The article never stops contrasting car to HSR, just like usual in the US media, when it is plane the most pertinent competitor to HSR
That depends on the market. New York to DC the fastest way to get between the two is Acela, the second fastest is a Regional, third fastest is car, bus and plane are close competitors and the bus wins out if you want to go downtown to downtown. . . . But then the people in New York City aren’t Real Americans, except on September 11th and the people in DC are only Real Americans on July 4th and September 11th and we all know that Real Americans don’t ride trains. ( one of the reasons people in the Northeast aren’t Real Americans, they ride trains now and then. Some of them have such good access to trains that they don’t even own cars. )
ericmarseille Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Ah yes I forgot…And Ahhh yes I forgot! they are so unreal, those REAL Americans!
synonymouse Reply:
September 21st, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Re: European light railroad equipment – A forceful critique of Bombardier and the Acela(Alstom?):
http://www.altamontpress.com/discussion/read.php?1,63362,63453#msg-63453
The discussion was occasioned by the suggestion that SMART should acquire second-hand Bombardier cars from Metrolink.
I think this pov deserves a hearing. Apparently the Congress thinks so.
Senate (Federal) Strips High-Speed Rail Funding
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/09/20/senate-strips-high-speed-rail-funding/
Those around here still believing that more funds for HSR will be forthcoming (from the Feds) in the foreseeable future can read this and weep.
Next on the block will the the $4 billion Obama has proposed for HSR in his dream “new jobs” bill.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
I don’t see why this is news. I doubt anyone on this blog is expecting any new federal funding prior to the 2012 election.
morris brown Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Peter: You had better read more of the posts here. All kinds of personalities writing about getting some or even all of the Obama Jobs program funds, ($4 billion is what he proposes for HSR). This extension was also a possibility.
J. Wong Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
And you’re counting on the Republicans that Obama’s jobs bill will be cut. Hopeful thinking on everyone’s part.
joe Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
If it’s cut then it will be an election topic for 2012 and we’ll see 2013 funding with a Jobs oriented congress.
Peter Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Morris, I read all of the posts here. Perhaps I should have placed emphasis on the word “expecting”. I know that a lot of people on this blog are hoping for more federal money this or next year. but I doubt many are expecting it.
joe Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
“Amendments can be offered at tomorrow’s full committee markup, so anything can change.”
VBobier Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Agreed Peter.
Morris go eat Yer cat food…
Tony d. Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Morris Brown: nothing but a geriatric, selfish individual who cares only about his property value and nothing else. Will you even be alive when HSR is up and running in 2020?
ericmarseille Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
I know Morris’s kind : people like him are opponents to HSR as long as it isn’t built ; when it is, they ride it happily, instant converts ; we’ve had plenty of them here in France.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Eric, you sound like getting the TGV built was quite an effort, that even the less car oriented, more train oriented French were skeptical. Was it tough? Was it as tough as what we are seeing here in America?
ericmarseille Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
In fact I don’t remember because I was too young at the time (I’m 48) ; I simply know that in France there are plenty of grumpy types who always take pleasure in downing in flames everything that makes a progress and that is new to them, only to use it without remorse after it is completed, and Morris seems to fit perfectly into this frame.
To answer your question, I know there was a lot of opposition, but it was, if I understand it correctly, coming more from politicians than the media and average folks ; at the time, the French public was very open to using large sums in devising new transport technology ; people took immense pride in the concorde, were hoping on the development of the aerotrain (there is still considerable nostalgia for the aerotrain, which was dumped for the TGV) ; at the time, in France, people believed everything was possible to our country ; the sky was the limit! so it certainly wasn’t the same mindset.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
“people believed everything was possible to our country ; the sky was the limit!”
That used to be us, Eric, until the late 1960s or early 1970s.
ericmarseille Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
I know.
Andre Peretti Reply:
September 21st, 2011 at 8:06 am
The situation was very different in the seventies. HSR was a new concept and the general public didn’t even know about it. It was the sort of futuristic project you could only read about in scientific magazines.
The opposition to it was restricted to political circles. There was no adverse lobbying because it was viewed as a niche product that didn’t threaten any existing interests. The government was split about it, with a majority against.
Some thought it was time to stop wasting money on passenger rail. News articles about SNCF’s “abysmal deficit” and dwindling ridership were common.
Other thought that France, contrary to Japan, didn’t need HSR since it already had a network of very fast electrified trains. The Mistral (Nice-Paris) and the Capitole (Toulouse-Paris) were the fastest and safest trains in the world.
In fact, SNCF’s situation was very bad at the time. Privately operated freeways were built, paralleling its best corridors and coach-class riders were lured to them. Those who used to travel first-class now chose to fly. A journalist even wrote: “the time is coming when trains will only transport SNCF employees’ families and friends travelling with free passes”.
Trains were no longer competitive. There was no speed limit (it now is 82mph) on freeways and speeds over 100mph were common on the fast lane. Lower than that, you were hogging it. My English friends were absolutely terrified when driving on French highways. As for planes, there was no security theater and you could board the Lyon-Paris air shuttle like a bus. Miss one, take next.
Yet, SNCF believed high speed could reverse the situation. To sum it up it was “HSR or die”.
Rather than wait years for uncertain government funding, the company decided to go it alone and float bonds on the financial market. They sold like hot cakes. I suppose bankers thought SNCF was too big to fail and the state would bail it out if things went wrong.
The success of the TGV totally changed the public perception of SNCF. All politicians, including those who had opposed it, wanted their photo near the TGV’s nose. Ridership soon exceeded previsions and the problem no longer was lack of riders but impossibility to satisfy the demand.
By the way, the Mistral is still running, but not in France. It was sold secondhand to Cuba and is now operated as a luxury train between Habana and Santiago. Cubans call it “el tren frances”. Some of rolling stock was also converted to narrow gauge and sent to Africa for use as luxury cars. The stainless steel bodyshells seem to defy age and tropical climates. The Mistral used to be a fast train. It is now slow, but indestructible.
Jack Reply:
September 21st, 2011 at 7:57 am
I promised Morris a beer on the first train we ride together.
Brandi Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Not surprising. The senate never has seemed to be much in favor of high speed rail funding. I find this surprising because Feinstein and Lautenberg are on the transportation subcommittee. Obviously they aren’t pushing that hard for HSR because it never makes it out of the subcommittee without being eliminated. I mean they cut down the house’s amount in FY 2010 and they didn’t care when it was gone in FY 2011. It’s a shame though because now it has been become a one time funding thing as opposed to something to be included every year. We even lost $1.5 billion from FY 2010. Not looking good for the future. I’m beginning to wonder if we’ll even have HSR before I retire and I’m only 27.
political_incorrectness Reply:
September 20th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
It is as per usual, having to give fully into the Tea Partiers.
What did the voters vote on? 800 miles of high speed rail for a cost of $33 billion. Anyone want to put their money on this happening. So I think the public deserves another fair look at this because it is double the cost and we still don’t have a viable business plan. Remember these consultant were give several opportunities to provide one and it has still not been produced.
Aaron
VBobier Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 1:50 pm
A revote is not going to happen, unless You can find the Millions of Dollars needed to fund a signature backed initiative campaign to put such an idea on a November ballot, but then We went through an election where Pro-HSR politicians soundly trounced Anti-HSR politicians, being Anti-HSR is a dead end, as It will be built, don’t like It? Move away or leave CA. The cost of doing nothing means building lots of unhealthy smog producing freeways and that always costs more than rail, as Interstate Highways cost a lot and take up more land than HSR ever will, trains can move faster and carry more people than an Interstate and intercity trains are at capacity currently, HSR would capitalize on that and build on that… Of course that means getting near a bunch of other Humans, heaven forbid that You started talking to other people, but then empathy seems to be possibly lacking on Anti-HSR types, As the Joker said: Why so Serious? Loosen up, ride a train, say Hi and shoot the breeze…
afukuda77 Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:20 pm
That is funny, how did it initially get on the ballot?
Also the do nothing does not mean what you demonize it to be. The alternative that everyone overlooks is investing in other regional and state-wide projects that do the same and if not more improvements for less cost. Examples, improving Caltrain, improving LOSSAN (not sure of name), creating a train corridor over the Grapevine for Amtrak, improving Amtrak (investments in scheduling and improved service), Baby-Bullet (c’mmon, everyone loves a baby). This should also be coupled with major investment in local and regional transit projects that helps locals move in a better fashion. Right now all you get is the slim potential that you will move a limited market of people amongst only large population centers.
So I say revote, direct money to projects with more benefits, can the Authority and sack consultants. Simple….right?
Peter Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:28 pm
“That is funny, how did it initially get on the ballot?”
It got on the ballot because people with a lot more foresight than you knew it was a very good idea.
“This should also be coupled with major investment in local and regional transit projects that helps locals move in a better fashion.”
Yes, that’s what New Starts, Small Starts, and TIGER Grants are for.
As an aside, is this the same Aaron who used to comment under “Aaron”?
afukuda77 Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Not sure Peter, I might have used my name, but when you log on, this is the username I always use. I am not shy about who I am or anything. I am a NIMBY by all your standards. My name is Aaron, so chances are good. I like to read this blog amongst others and contrary to what many of you may think of me, some of the supporting HSR notes are good, however I like to put my money and effort behind projects that have good engineering and the highest percentage of success.
Peter Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Hmm, I may be mistaken about you using your name as your username. Are you the Aaron from Hanford? Just curious.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:38 pm
800 miles of high speed rail for a cost of $33 billion.
Nope they voted on Anaheim to San Francisco which isn’t 800 miles. They voted on 33 billion in 2008 dollars. Got any more FUD?
afukuda77 Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Ok,
Cities are good reference points and depending on what alignment mileage matters. Inflation has not doubled has it? I realize these are projects that it is going to be $66 billion, however the last I read it isn’t getting any cheaper.
And, don’t try and argue it is dollar years. It was poor engineering and planning that drove the cost up. Oh and almost forgot politics.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Who says it’s going to cost 66 billion?
Tony d. Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 4:15 pm
AD12800,
Don’t you get it? Its the GOP way: tell a lie a million times in the hopes that some people will begin to think its the truth. Just wait until we start hearing HSR will cost a cool trillion $$.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Same people who told us Iraq was going to cost 150 billion?
afukuda77 Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Taking the current estimates for the Fresno to Bakersfield section, the CHSRA estimates are approximately double the cost. This is for a section they claim is the easiest and fastest, so where does that leave the cost estimates for the rest of the track.
What is your guess at the price tag?
An Tony, it is people like you that polarize the nation into parties. This leads the nation to vote on party lines instead of using common sense and educated decision making. I don’t care if you are Dem or Rep you are a person.
Would the initial construction segment include a track maintenance facility in Kern County? Where would it be located, a proposed HVMF site? How many permanent jobs would it create?
Bret Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 3:29 pm
According to the EIR/EIS’s the HMF will be built somewhere between Merced and Fresno, but won’t start construction until 2017. If you look at the tables and information provided in the EIR/EIS, Kern County (Wasco or Shafter) is the best place to locate the HMF, and it will bring approximately 1500 permanent jobs to the area. Also included in that, according to the EIR/EIS is a co-located Maintenance of Way Facility (to maintain the tracks) which will bring an additional 300 jobs. Keep in mind, those are the “direct employment” numbers. If you consider “indirect and induced” jobs, you’re looking at between 4500-5400 permanent jobs coming to the area.
Bret Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 3:30 pm
correction, built between Merced and Bakersfield
Bret Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Howard, if you haven’t yet heard of it, or seen it, you can visit http://www.kernfasttrack.com where you can find a lot of information on the Heavy Maintenance Facility and efforts to make sure it is located in Kern County.
Peter Reply:
September 23rd, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Or check out http://www.fresnoworks.com for Fresno County’s HMF bid.