Southern California Association of Governments Abandons Maglev
The plan to connect Anaheim to Las Vegas with a maglev system appears to be dead as its chief backer, the Southern California Association of Governments, has decided to abandon it in its new transportation plan. Dug Begley of the Press-Enterprise explains the story:
Transportation planners once dreamed that super-fast trains would whisk Southern Californians at more than 300 mph across the Mojave Desert to Las Vegas.
But the idea of a magnetic levitation train didn’t stick around for long in regional transportation plans developed by the Southern California Association of Governments. Local planners instead are concentrating on connections within Southern California, so that when — and if — bullet trains ever come, conventional trains have a steady and direct route to get to them.
So 11 years after maglev made its debut in the regional transportation plan for Southern California, the agency overseeing the road and transit plan has deleted most of the Anaheim-to-Vegas route once proposed, saying maglev is not moving forward and is falling behind a competing project. As a result, the 2012 transportation plan under consideration by the Southern California Association of Governments does not include the $12.1 billion California-Nevada Super-Speed Train.
Maglev, with its far greater construction costs, was always a longshot for the SoCal-Vegas corridor. It had received millions in federal funding for studies, but as the DesertXpress project gained more momentum and support, particularly owing to its much lower construction cost for building a standard steel-wheel high speed rail system, maglev sank further and further behind. In 2010, Senator Harry Reid switched his support away from maglev and to DesertXpress. Without Reid’s backing, further federal funding for planning seemed unlikely, with federal backing for construction seeming to be almost out of the question.
With that in mind, SCAG wisely decided to abandon the maglev plan. This is a sensible approach, since the DesertXpress project can serve the same demand – at least if it is connected to LA via Palmdale.
SCAG is backing high speed rail as well:
Local officials in fact are asking for more than 20 percent of the $9 billion in high-speed rail money California voters approved in 2008 as part of Prop. 1A. McCallon said SCAG officials have concluded in the transportation plan that $1 billion should be spent in Southern California — and $1 billion in Northern California — getting passenger rail lines better connected to high-speed hubs.
The money would be used to improve service mostly along Metrolink’s Antelope Valley corridor north of downtown Los Angeles, and along the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo rail corridor that carries Amtrak trains. Some money could come to the Inland area via track and railcar improvements, and possibly even more trains scheduled to ferry passengers.
Better track and safety improvements could help those Amtrak and passenger trains travel at higher speeds; as fast as 110 mph potentially along the LOSSAN corridor.
It sounds like SCAG wants to divert the HSR money from the Central Valley to their backyard, which an understandable if flawed approach to take. Their best bet is actually to push for the LA-SF portion of the system to be completed and made operational, which will generate demand and momentum to extend the system eastward to Riverside or San Bernardino on the way to San Diego.
The overall SCAG 2012 transportation plan, looking several decades into the future, envisions spending $525 billion on a variety of projects, especially more freeway lanes. But they may want to reconsider that plan, and add a lot more transit and rail, after today’s news that Attorney General Kamala Harris is suing the San Diego Association of Governments over their transportation plan:
The San Diego Association of Governments was the first regional agency to have to comply with a new state law requiring its transportation plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next 25 years. The governor’s office and state Attorney General Kamala Harris said the plan didn’t go far enough to get San Diego drivers off the road and into buses, trolleys or bike lanes.
On Monday, Harris sued, putting more heft behind a similar lawsuit that local and national environmental groups filed after Sandag approved its plan last year. The suits both show that neither the state nor environmentalists want to see Sandag’s approach become precedent in California — and are willing to fight.
“The 3.2 million residents of the San Diego region already suffer from the seventh worst ozone pollution in the country,” Harris said in a news release. “Spending our transit dollars in the right way today will improve the economy, create sustainable jobs and ensure that future generations do not continue to suffer from heavily polluted air.”
This will be a very important case for California’s transportation future, and one I’ll be watching very closely. If SANDAG loses, then they’ll have to spend more money developing transit and rail – including high speed rail. Already there’s strong economic, environmental, and sustainability reasons to do that. But Kamala Harris is indicating there may also be legal reasons as well. This could be a transformative case for California and make high speed rail an even more attractive option by finally making it clear to people that just building more freeway lanes is not an option any longer.
At the very least, SCAG should pay attention to this case. They might even want to start revising their plans now to include more rail and less freeways, before Kamala Harris turns to them next.
It’s important to note that in San Diego all 19 jurisdictions (each city and the county) get a vote on the RTP through SANDAG. Right now, the more northerly and conservative part of the county has nine incorporated cities and thus, almost half the votes.
By contrast, SCAG has an 84, yes 84 member board that is divided by districts not jurisdictions. Of the 81 members accounted for on SCAG’s website… 41 hail from … Los Angeles County. In fact, the current Chairman is Santa Monica Council Member and subway advocate Pam O’Connor.
Indeed, SCAG’s proposal could accomodate an incredibly favorable ruling for the Sierra Club and the AG’s office with a few modifications here and there. But because there’s no BART (only the diesel burning, freight competing, barely-grade separated Metrolink) it’s hard for them to not advocate for earmarking some of the bond money to fix the region’s headaches.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 10:03 pm
The bond money would do more good there anyhow. Hell, the way CAHSRA wants to build things, there aren’t any of HSR’s benefits compared to maglev. Irvine-Bakersfield should be the goal if we want LA-SF, not a middle of nowhere ICS.
VBobier Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:50 am
Yeah well the bond money will not go there, SCAG has a Fantasy problem and needs to see a psychiatrist, the same goes for the deniers too, Higher Speed Rail(Incremental improvements) is not true HSR and I expect is not covered in Prop1a at all.
Nathanael Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
No, HSR is still cheaper than maglev.
The Chinese gave up on maglev, because basically, take the same civil construction costs as HSR — make them higher because maglev needs to be flatter — and then add a huge expense in magnets.
The Japanese are working on it but they’re in kind of a special case, the only place with a maxed-out filled-up HSR line. I suspect it’ll die there too since Japan is going to be spending its money decommissioning nukes.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Maglev does not need to be flatter. It can be much steeper, because maglev has higher initial acceleration and higher kinetic energy at the bottom. It can also have tighter curves at the same speed.
Alas, it’s technologically expensive, and can’t run on legacy infrastructure.
Miles Bader Reply:
January 27th, 2012 at 6:16 am
Also maglev has no wheel adhesion issues … at all.
It’s great for climbing!
Miles Bader Reply:
January 27th, 2012 at 6:22 am
Note that the Japanese government isn’t paying for the maglev line (JR central will raise the funds itself), so money required for “decommissioning nukes” isn’t in direct conflict with paying for the Chuo Shinkansen (maglev). Who knows what indirect effects all that mess will have on the country in general, of course…
Compared to CHSRA prices, Maglev would be a bargain.
Joey Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Yes, it appears that our costs have thoroughly surpassed those of the Chuo Maglev project, which is 60% tunneled.
I still support HSR in concept, but I have trouble figuring out how some people still think that everything is okay.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 10:40 pm
What are you talking about?
CAHSR construction costs, 2010 dollars: 65 billion
CAHSR route-length: 720 km
CAHSR cost per km: $90 million
Chuo Shinkansen construction costs, yen (the same as 2010 yen): 8.44 trillion
Chuo Shinkansen construction costs, 2010 dollars: 84 billion
Chuo Shinkansen route-length: 440 km
Chuo Shinkansen cost per km: $190 million
Joey Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Yeah, I forgot the conversion from present to YOE. Still, we’re likely near the probable non-US costs for Maglev given the terrain.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 12:43 am
That’s entirely possible. Japanese urban construction isn’t exactly cheap. (Non-urban construction is pretty cheap – the Aomori extension, which is 50% in tunnel, cost $55 million/km.)
ComradeFrana Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 2:12 am
/nitpick
CAHSR phase 1 is 520 miles = 837 km, that means it is $78M/km not $90M/km.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Sorry, I was working off of the trip planner on the official website, since it’s the fastest way to access route length numbers.
iqmotorsports Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:41 am
I may be wrong but I do not believe we have a company that has laid any HSR, nor do we have a manufacture that has built one part that has been installed on a HSR. So not only does it cost 100 billion but it leaves America. Jobs!!!! has anyone every watched a pipe line being laid? They do not hire local people the crew starts at one end and builds to the other. They may hire a local guy to pick up trash but the crew moves with the project. Besides 50% of the 9% unimployed are looking for a job not work, and “gandydancers” are skilled and hard working
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:01 am
But think of how this will boost the motel industry and related businesses in the Central Valley as the crews make their way through. Jobs!
Alon Levy Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
HSR is not a pipeline. Most of the cost is local construction; it’s not end-to-end, but rather segment by segment, like a freeway. The US has a lot of construction firms and a lot of construction workers. The engineers are not going to be local, but everything else is going to employ people who live fairly close to where construction takes place. The big tunnels are probably an exception since nobody lives on top of the mountain passes, but in the CV, the work will be done by people living in the CV.
Nathanael Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Even the tunnel digging will be done by Californians, most likely.
Do you know if anyone in the US manufactures tunnel boring machines?
Only the actual track and trains will be made outside the US.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to ship concrete from China. Steel rail, maybe. The track will be mostly American made.
Thanks for highlighting the lawsuit filed against SANDAG. That is also a story that I follow closely as a resident of San Diego. I was in the board room when that sham of a regional transportation plan was passed. Against all opposition this non-elected board voted for it. Thanks to the Attorney General the other environmental law suits will be bolstered. I hope SANDAG will be forced to re-think their “freeways first” approach.
Successfull HSR are destination systems not commutor systems. SF to LA, LA to Vegas, SF to Portland, Portland To Seattle—-No Stops. Amtrac is a great system and with some improvements could be a more successful commutor system. Americans paid for the rail system and allowed the owners to do away with passenger service as we became enamored with auto and plane, now it is time to go back to the RR’s a make them operate a efficent passenger system. Double tracks and use of the every systems lines would be a great start. Terminals with safe long and short term parking. In return give the RR’s something. Outlaw any trucks in our ports, over 15,000,000 containers move intoand our of our ports mover every one by rail. Use exsisting right-of-ways to build “higher speed”railroads that move every container out of our ports to a rural location where they are loaded on trucks for delivery. Make the system electric and cover the right of way with solar. This will eminate thousands of trucks from our inner city highways. The nice thing about freight is you pay the bill or you do not get the container it is “profitable” Lets invest a few dollars to fix our exsisting system.
Matthew B Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 4:14 am
European systems typically stop every half hour or so at a city with at least a few hundred thousand people. A sizable proportion of people and ridership will come from intercity trips on those intermediate stops.
iqmotorsports Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 8:42 am
London-Paris non stop, and the routes that stop every 30 min average far less than 200mph , I ride AMTRAC Madera to Fresno 35 min, Early train north Burbank Airport to Madera 4 hrs for $32.50. If our AMTRAC system had more priority, access to every line, and did not have to move from mainline to siding speeds would be much higher. The bus from Burbank to Bako is almost like a shuttle, It would be nice it it were not there but it is. They could travel 80-90 mph, so for a 100 billion we can average 150. Main reason I do not fly to LA anymore I have to drive to Fresno Air Terminal, 45 min,park and walk 15 min, get there at least one hour and usually one and a half, Go to ticket check in and show two kinds of photo ID, weigh my bags pay $175 be treated like a terriost, undress, oh dam I left a fishing hook in my bag by mistake into the back room get asked what my intentions were finally fill out a form that goes to Home Land Security stating I am a know fish hook carrier. Depart for a 45 min flight but land at the commutor terminal get on a shuttle to the main gate all this took just under 4 hours. Or I drive 12 min to Madera terminal, trains are on time so no early, place my bag in the convieient storage area, walk up to the seating area and we are underway. The Porter comes by takes my preprinted registration, looks at my ID, prints out a CC invoice $32.50 I am done, I walk to the dinning car get a newspaper and martini and relax, 4 and a half hours later I am in Burbank.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
There are a couple of stops between London and Paris, including one major city (Lille) and a few suburban and exurban locations, but a lot of trains skip them.
Likewise, on the Shinkansen, there are many stops between the terminals, with a mixture of local trains making all stops, and express trains making only major stops (but never running nonstop).
Nathanael Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
We all agree with you about the unpleasantness of modern US air travel.
Nathanael Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
To be very clear, a lot of these people are going between an intermediate stop and an endpoint. This isn’t exactly “commuter traffic”, this is more like “visiting the big city” traffic.
This used to be a standard and understood thing in the 19th century; residents of smaller towns frequently want to visit the big city (more often than once a year, if they can afford it). It’s still true. Conversely, people from the big city often want to visit the smaller towns.
You don’t see people going between from one smaller town to another nearly as often (though it does happen).
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
It happens all the time – going from one small town to another. On a per capita basis probably more frequently than big city people leave the city. Mostly because you can’t meet all of your.. desires… in town. For instance my little hamlet doesn’t have a doctor or a dentist. There’s a small supermarket and a drug store but if you want something they don’t have you have to go to the next town over. Or to the big city, Glens Falls.
Matthew B Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
It seems somewhat reasonable to assume it is more or less the case that the probability of someone travelling to a city is proportional to the size of the city. If everyone is equally likely to want to travel at some point, regardless of what sized city they’re from, then the probability of travel between two cities is proportional to the size of the first city multiplied by the size of the second one. If LA is 4 million people, SF is 800K, Bakersfield (MSA) is 800K, and Fresno (MSA) is 1 million, that means that Bakersfield-Fresno would have about 1/4 the number of trips as SF-LA. This is a very crude approximation, but one can see that if you start cutting down on the number of city pairs, you throw away ridership very quickly unless you’re counting on people travelling to the larger cities and transfering to your “intercity” service. It’s really the best system for everyone if it hits intermediate cities, and then serves bigger cities slightly better by running some express trains. That’s how pretty much every successful system in the world works, including Eurostar. You can disagree with my extremely crude “ridership model,” but the real world isn’t going to deviate that far from it to make it not worthwhile to pick up all those millions of extra riders in the Central Valley and Inland Empire.
Matthew B Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
I used city limits for LA and SF but MSA for Bakersfield and Fresno because LA and SF metro areas will have multiple stations. That’s just a crude approximation anyway, so I hope the point is still taken.
Their best bet is actually to push for the LA-SF portion of the system to be completed and made operational, which will generate demand and momentum to extend the system eastward to Riverside or San Bernardino on the way to San Diego.
In what universe is this their best bet? Pushing for a $100 billion, 2 decade project in the hopes that maybe in 2040 or so they can get decent regional rail to San Diego?
On the other hand, for 2-3 billion you could bring the LOSSAN corridor up to 110 mph – on par with typical European regional rail standards (if that’s done travel times between LAUS and San Diego compared to CAHSR’s dogleg through the IE would be pretty much a wash anyway); and this could be started right now. This is already the busiest US rail corridor besides the NEC, and that’s with the current schedule which takes around 2:45 to go 120 miles.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Sorry to burst your bubble, but your suggestion is akin to having good money chase bad.
The only beneficiary of your plan is BNSF who would get a free subsidy to upgrade its track between LAUS and Fullerton. Now, Metro has sought such an expansion for years and years because of Metrolink. But Metrolink and Coaster carry around 1.5 to double the amount of passengers daily as the Surfliner. (I say this because I can’t find Surfliner ridership only for LA-SD…)
To get “European-style” service you need more capacity further south in places like Mission Viejo and Oceanside. And you would need realistically to do something about the Trestles and other areas of track about to fall into the ocean. At that point, if you are going to have to bore tunnels or other major earthen work I don’t see a good argument to rebuild the track without electrifying it anyway and then it’s only so much more before you have an HSR-quality track.
However, you are correct: the Inland Empire dogleg is an even bigger waste of money than Altamont. [Waits for the usual suspects to start hurling tomatoes...] I think the only way HSR gets to San Diego is via the coast. But to limit the service to 110mph is an idea poured from the same Kool-Aid as stopping HSR in San Jose.
EJ Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Actually, the LOSSAN corridor is the whole thing from LAUS to San Diego. (actually I believe it includes LAUS to Santa Barbara as well but I’m referring to the southern end). I was mainly referring to adding more double track and fixing the 100 year old bridges (much of which already has design work completed). The big tunneling project is miramar hill, with a smaller one just north of there to get the track off the bluffs.
San Clemente is an issue, but commuter traffic is light there and single track is probably acceptable for at least the near future. On the other hand building a 200 mph system down the coast is a non-starter, the cost of all the necessary real estate acquisitons alone would be prohibitive, even if you could get it past the Coastal Commission.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
LOSSAN=Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Doubt it.
Brown signed the Farmers Field bill allowing caps on environmental review and its quite likely that the same will be done for HSR. (Not that I support the idea necessarily…)
As for the other improvements you name…. those were supposed to be addressed in 2006 with the Prop 1B bonds until they were swiped to patch the deficit that year.
I don’t see the point, of 110 mph service when you still have to share the tracks with commuter rail and already can get 80mph service. (Not to mention the issue of the FRA waiver).
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Because it’s faster and faster is better? They’re upgrading portions of it to 110mph as it is (Santa Ana to San Juan Capistrano).
paul dyson Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
It’s much more important in the south end of the LOSSAN corridor to improve reliability and to “go slow less often” with e.g. complete double track, improvements to the approaches to LAUS and a tunnel under Miramar hill. You then have a decent regional route which connects important markets (Anaheim, Irvine, Oceanside, Solana Beach) plus a reasonable end to end running time. Having a few miles at 110 mph, especially with slow accelerating diesels, may be good for headlines but is hardly worth the expense.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Oh definitely agreed on that one. The only real benefit is that it’s fairly cheap to redo the signaling (which is being done with PTC anyhow) for it compared to the other projects.
EJ Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
No argument there, especially since major portions of the south end are theoretically cleared for 90 mph already due to ATC. Regardless, whether its 110 mph or 80 mph or 90 mph, making the necessary improvements so these speeds are actually achievable over the bulk of the route is a project that is long overdue, and suggesting that it’s in SoCal’s interest to prioritize SF-LA HSR is ridiculous.
thatbruce Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
@paul dyson (and @Tom McNamara):
Having a few miles at 110 mph, especially with slow accelerating diesels, may be good for headlines but is hardly worth the expense.
Right now, the state of the LA – SD LOSSAN corridor doesn’t permit a 110mph service. But making each gradual improvement be capable of 110mph+ service makes sense in preparation for the day when several of these stretches are finally one 110mph-capable segment.
Jonathan Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Yes. But don’t go pissing away Prop 1A funds for that. My understanding is that the LA-SF 2:40m requirement was written in specifically to stop peope pissing away the bond money on incrementally-faster-legacy-rail, rather than HSR.
synonymouse Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
Borden to Corcoran is pissing away the money when we already own the I-5 ROW.
Jonathan Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Saying “Borden to Corcoran” is dishonesty, plain and simple. At least get the facts straight.
paul dyson Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Good point, but depends on distance between stops and characteristics of the route. Probably wouldn’t work along the beach or through Capistrano.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Both of which have tunnels planned.
thatbruce Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
@Paulus Magnus:
Del Mar (beach/cliff) and the curves through the Golden Triangle (Sorrento/University City) have tunnels planned. San Juan Capistrano marks the start of an extended single-track beach-running section which currently has no fixed plans (that I’m aware of) for duplication, beyond ‘something should be done’.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
The LOSSAN strategic plan calls for tunnels in San Clemente and SJC with community outreach already done for some route selection issues.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Not really. 110 miles per hour, with stops, gets you 90 minutes LAUS-SD. Quite frankly, that’s more than acceptable. There’s not too much room where you could really boost it up to 160 miles per hour (mostly San Diego County) and the pros really don’t outweigh the cons there.
EJ Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
I was just in Austria, and took OBB’s railjet service – which are upgraded regional and international trains using conventional equipment that go up to 125 mph. They’re pretty popular, but apparently all those Austrians are wrong because any rail transportation that’s not true HSR is just worthless garbage, regardless of expense or value for money.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
I was in France and took the TGV from Nice to Paris and back. That’s 2.5 hours for the 225 km on legacy track to Marseille, and another 3 hours for the 720 km on high-speed track from Marseille to Paris. Flying takes an hour. I got berated both by parents and by people on this blog for not flying like everyone does, but the air-rail mode share of HSR on Paris-Nice, despite the long trip time, is 31%.
However, I’m not going to make snarky remarks about the French, since the plan to improve trip times to Nice is embarrassingly gold-plated.
EJ Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Further to your point, CAHSR’s route planner lists the travel time between LAUS and SD via the IE dogleg at 78 minutes, so travel time’s pretty much a wash, and the coast route gives better connectivity to Orange County, which is far more important to San Diego than the mighty Ontario International Airport.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
the coast route gives better connectivity to Orange County,
Sucks if you want to get to Riverside, San Bernandino or Palm Springs … or Phoenix or Tucson.
EJ Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Yeah but it’s great if you want to get to Disneyland or… whatever the hell it is all those people do in Irvine. But a hell of a lot of them go there.
I mean, whatever. You prioritize one destination you deprioritize others. The actual conditions on the ground, right now, are that the IEOC line is the least utilized of metrolink’s lines, and a lot more San Diegans travel to the OC than go to the IE.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
And a lot more Arizonans fly to John Wayne or San Diego. The coastal HSR option is better even for transport to Las Vegas, Phoenix AND Tucson.
The “dog-leg” is more about getting political support in the Inland Empire and appeasing the City of LA by having one of their airports get a station on the main line.
Matthew B Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 4:25 am
The IE has a lot of people going to San Diego and Los Angeles. A connection through Riverside and San Bernardino counties will bring an additional 4 million people to the system. That’s more than the number of people in the San Diego metro area. Building the high speed rail route through the Inland Empire doesn’t preclude upgrades to the coastal route, which would probably provide the better connection for people going from San Diego to Orange County. At any rate, this is part of phase 2, and it’s hard to say when that might be and what population and employment statistics for San Diego and the Inland Empire will be by then.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 6:30 am
Why no… San Bernardino and Riverside Counties hold 4 million people but far less than that would live near the dog leg…maybe on the order of a million or so. The “Inland Empire” doesn’t include those living in the High Desert nor those living in the Coachella Valley.
Moreover, there’s not a speck of connecting transit out there for passengers to disembark on. (Which is exactly the point: make passengers captive audiences between LA and Ontario or UC Riverside).
Given how underutilized the IEOC line is, it makes a ton of more sense to beef up service on it and never build the “‘leg” in the first place.
Matthew B Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Tom, Victorville is just over 100K, Barstow is about 25K. The Coachella Valley has a population of about 600K. Suppose that’s 1 million who live North or East of the mountains (and I suspect that’s a rather high estimate). That still leaves at least 3 million people who would live within the direct catchment area of the high speed rail line – the same number as Orange or San Diego Counties (including those who live nowhere near the line). Transit could be improved, but is not non-existant. In fact a reasonable number of people ride the existing systems: http://www.omnitrans.org/about/quik-facts.shtml and http://www.riversidetransit.com/
Expansions to both rail and bus rapid transit are currently funded and will be completed in the next couple years. This will actually put both the population and the quality of connecting transit in the Inland Empire ahead of Orange County. I realize this doesn’t match the narrative you’re trying to sell, that the proposed route makes no sense and that we should decrease the scope of any final rail system. In fact, you’re proposing to cut out service to millions of people in the highest growth areas of the state. If California is going to retain its prosperity, it won’t achieve that by not providing services to inland areas.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Explain again why the IE is somehow best served with tens of billions of dollars in viaducts and tunnels for intercity rail priced far too high for commuters instead of just upgrading Metrolink? Explain why heavy proven demand is less important than a supposition that, despite rising gas and therefore commute costs, the IE is going to continue growing at the same rate as it did during the housing bubble.
Matthew B Reply:
January 27th, 2012 at 5:34 am
Let’s assume that we agree it might be a good idea to connect SD to LA and the rest of the state with higher quality rail. Explain to me why that money should be spent on a coastal route frought with NIMBYs, military installations, and unstable coastal bluffs while not serving a larger percentage of the population. Coastal real estate development is frozen by NIMBYs complaining about the traffic that would result from a larger population, so I doubt we will be seeing significant population growth in OC or Northern SD county. I’m not saying the IE is necessarily better, just that your arguments sound more like coastal snobbery than a logical argument for one route over another.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
The basic advantage of the IE dogleg is that the dogleg plus I-10 gives decent Phoenix-SD service, and the dogleg plus Cajon gives decent Phoenix-LV service.
And no, I don’t know if it means that the dogleg is better than going through the coast and improving OC-SD and LA-SD service.
EJ Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
And by the time anyone gets around to building HSR to Phoenix or Tucson, we’ll surely have built a rail line from San Diego to Riverside.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
We’ll all be dead, and probably our kids too.
EJ Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
That’s my point – if you’re justifying an inland route from SD to LA because it’s on a hypothetical HSR route to Phoenix – well, it’s become a religious argument that has little connection to reality.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
You haven’t read the never ending Altamont vs Pacheco threads have you?
Nathanael Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
OK, has nobody here read the Alternatives Analysis from SD to LA?
Basically it says that SF to LA demand is so large that two tracks from SD to LA isn’t enough. So, putting everything along the Coast Line would mean a FOUR TRACK corridor through all those “sensitive” areas. Not going to happen.
So the plan is to put the locals on the coast and the expresses inland.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Except that no, that’s not what it said. It said that they wanted one seat rides to SF and SAC with dedicated HSR tracks. Electrifying and double tracking gives you more than enough capacity to do any sane frequency of intercity and commuter rails in the corridor.
State Auditor issues report — another black eye for the Authority.
Audit accuses high-speed rail of risky financing, contract splitting
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/01/audit-accuses-high-speed-rail-of-risky-financing-contract-splitting.html
In yet another blow to California’s troubled high-speed rail project, California’s state auditor said this morning that the project’s financing is “increasingly risky” and its oversight inadequate.
The report can be found at:
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/
Of course Gov. Brown doesn’t care, probably doesn’t read, and with his its is full speed ahead, regardless.
synonymouse Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
It is apparent that Jerry can no longer formulate or grasp alternatives. I guess just a factor of encroaching senescence. Firing Van Ark for, responsibly and intelligently, putting together an option in the face of rising costs and engineering problems is a classic example of isolated, bunkered, hunkered-down “leadership”. It typified “W”; it typified Mubarak; and it’s typifying the ayatollahs.
Maybe the GOP got burned by the recall of Gray Davis and the subsequent ascension of the Governator. They haven’t much energy to oppose anything, even tho Brown is way slipping and is way dimmer than Gray Davis. Ditto for the three napping crones in DC and the Demo bullpen is totally sub-stellar.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Demo bullpen is totally sub-stellar.
As if the Republicans are fielding such a great team.
synonymouse Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
The crones are about as useless as the Kardashians and have about about as much concern for us ordinary, non-zillionaire folk as the Grinch.
Now the Chandlers assuredly have impeccable ties with the GOP. Notable convergence of interests of the Tejon mob and the anti-rail Reason Foundation who would love to see the hsr sandbagged with a dilatory expensive, slow route. No tunnels, no trains up there in the high-value, close-in Tejon “resort” – relegate hsr to the back side of town, up there in the ghetto boonies above trailer trash Palmdale.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
The irony in all of this is the douche bags running this state into the ground will cast aside environmental review on HSR as they reach down to places San Diego with an iron fist to enforce their will on the way people live their lives.
F- them all. F-ing Hypocrites.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Wow, smoking gun there Morris!
Too bad you could say almost the same thing for every transportation plan in the nation because the Highway Trust Fund is insolvent….
…the contractor comments are instructive because everyone knows that a) Arnold wanted the agency to be extra-legal to avoid the grasp of the Legislature and the public sector employee unions b) the examination process discourages good candidates from applying.
Jerry’s already working on those two problems. And now that Dan Richard is going to be chair, expect movement on the third.
peninsula Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Bloomberg article:
“The plan also leaves out $96.8 billion in operating and maintenance costs from 2025 to 2060, she said.”
It’ll be interesting to see the authority’s next iteration of the business plan including how they’ll operate without subsidy…
Madera County votes 4:1 to oppose High Speed Rail.
So now we have in the Central Valley, the location where the Authority was predicting little to no opposition some time ago, three Counties already saying we oppose the project. (Madera, Kings and Tulare)
The more information that become visible, the more the project is opposed.
Jon Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Have you just figured out how to make text bold?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Have you just worked out that wordpress.com default installation doesn’t provide comment preview or comment editing?
This plug gives preview, but I have no idea what would be involved in installing it hereabouts.
Let he without typo sin cast the first stone.
Jon Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
I don’t think it’s a typo. It think that morris brown has just figured out how to use tags in html and is making good use of them in his heroic crusade against the evils of high speed rail.
And yes, it would be nice to have a preview function on this blog.
Jon Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Ah fuck. Hoist with my own petard.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Always a crap shoot. Sometimes you select italics and you get bold. WTF???
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
I dunno I get italics when I want them and bold when I want it.
Very rarely I want both and I get ‘em
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HUVPQi291to
Jack Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Madera isn’t getting a stop; of course there opposed…
SANDAG is labeling additional freeway lanes as transit. Charles “Muggs” Stoll, director of land use and transportation planning for SANDAG, said “We prefer not to divide what we’re doing in transportation into transit versus highways. A major component will be managed lanes, where we add flexible lanes in the median of existing freeway routes.”
Stoll defended this approach, saying they could manage the lanes to, say, disallow single drivers if they became too crowded.
The plaintiffs don’t believe managed lanes will be effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and are instead advocating for more transit infrastructure.
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 8:00 am
“SANDAG is labeling additional freeway lanes as transit.”
Oh, yeah, I can already see that going to go over well as an argument in court.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 8:34 am
Might as well have ripped that quote from the “Issa For Governor” campaign materials….
Nathanael Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
I think this court case is going to win easily. Labeling the lanes as transit can’t possibly work when the purpose of the law is about GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
If Sandag had marked them as “electric vehicle only” lanes they might get away with it.
I hate air travel!! I wish a few of you posters were on the planning of this deal I had to search but to project 4200 riders a day at Merced and 4000 at Fresno was my tip off that ridership projections were done with the lotto ball machine. I will bet my stake in Hell there will not be signs posted in towns along the routes needed rail road construction workers. Everyone with a tool belt is a “journeyman” I do not think Fresno City College even offers apprentience programs for trades. Have any of you looked at what it takes to dig a hole and put a Construction Zone sign up, First the Caltrans engineers notes on his drawngs that have been throught many reviews that the sign needs to be posted inan aprox location. A caltrans guy goes out and puts a stake on the side of the road. a enviromental guy carfully walks the area noting endangered plants or animal holes with little orange flags each with a number, that has been put on a new drawing, now CDFG approve the inspection of the site now a caltrans guy goes out and drives a stake where the sign is going to be placed. Now the contractor sends his guy out to place the sign BUT he needs the enviromental guy to watch and make sure he does not step on any of the little flags–and you guys think every agency is planning to milk the HSR to the max 100billion wont pay off CDFG, every farmer i know is planning a legal battle and there are some great court cases where caltrans split farms and they paid and paid and paid very famous one won by the Merced lawyer CRayRobinson