HSR Supporters Ramp Up Organizing and Information Efforts
Today a national coalition of high speed rail advocates began organizing a broad and multifaceted effort to mobilize public support behind the California high speed rail project. This comes at a crucial time in the project’s development, as a few Democratic State Senators are considering turning Tea Party on us and joining Republicans like Scott Walker in killing a high speed rail project that has great promise for California and its future.
HSR advocates from around the country, including Californians For High Speed Rail, have united to launch an effort to contact elected leaders and urge them to continue supporting the project. Stand Up For Trains is a project that includes CA4HSR, Midwest High Speed Rail, NARP, America 2050, USHSR, Transportation For America, USPIRG, and other regional HSR organizations. Spread the link far and wide and make sure you contact your state legislators. If you’re not in California, the site also allows you to suggest to friends who are in California that they contact their legislators to support HSR.
Organizing and messaging go hand-in-hand. To that effect, the California Alliance for Jobs is airing a new radio ad in Sacramento and the Bay Area in support of the high speed rail project. You can listen to the ad here – it’s narrated by comedian Will Durst, who narrated a Yes on Prop 1A ad back during the 2008 campaign. The script for this new ad:
“Hey guys, Will Durst here. Let’s talk about vision — and when I say vision, I’m not talking about some guy doing Lasik surgery in a van down by the river. I mean looking at the future and doing something positive to effect it. And that’s why I was happy to hear Governor Brown’s vision for high-speed rail.
“As with any project of this scope, there are problems to overcome, but we can do this. You know, in 1939, naysayers called the proposed interstate highway system ‘New Deal, jitterbug economics.’ In 1966, some called the planned BART system a billion-dollar fiasco.
“There will always be skeptics. Heck, some people would vote against sunshine and hugs. But we need a fast, green, inviting way to move around California. Are we going to let this great project be sunk by the naysayers or elevated by the visionaries? It’s time to do the right thing – put people to work now and build something momentous for our future.”
This is excellent messaging, because it emphasizes the need to focus on solving problems and embracing a sustainable, smart vision for California’s future. The HSR critics want us to quit when we face problems, give up on our vision, and embrace defeatism. None of the issues currently facing California HSR are unsolvable, and infrastructure that California depends on today faced their challenges when they were being planned and designed. We overcame those challenges then, and can overcome them now – but only if we organize and act.
And if you need another data point to bolster the case for high speed rail, there’s this news that Amtrak’s ridership and revenues are up:
After a record year last year, 2012 is off to a strong start for Amtrak with revenue and ridership up in January.
Amtrak carried 2.23 million passengers systemwide in January, up 4.8 percent from a year earlier. Revenue rose 4.5 percent to $134.8 million last month. Ridership on its Northeast Corridor, including regional and Acela high speed train, was up 7.5 percent from a year ago.
The critics want everyone to believe nobody will ride trains in America. We know that’s false. Now it’s time to spread the word and contact Sacramento legislators and tell them not to give up on California’s future.
who specifically should I be writing too to voice support? Boxer? Feinstein? Pelosi? Brown? My guy in the house ( not sure who that is now that Im in merced ugh) Or is it the reps in the state government who are more important?
there are still millions of californians who support the project but who after voting, just expect it to get done. the vocal opponents, a combination of naysayers, nimbys, anti rail folks, and people who want it done their way or no way, are not the majority but they are being allowed to gum up the works.
Its become a national sport. Americans have turned into the biggest bunch of sourpuss crybabies on earth.
wah wah the train will vibrate! good lord. Everyone is just so delicate now.
StevieB Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 1:16 am
The government provides California’s Representatives – Congressional District Maps that make it easy to find your congressmen if you can find where you live on a map.
Mike Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 8:46 am
It’s probably most worthwhile at this point for supporters to focus not on members of Congress, but on members of the California Legislature, and perhaps even their local city/county leaders. It’s the California Legislature that needs to act to keep the project going (by approving the ICS appropriation).
joe Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Both. It’s not too hard to re-purpose a letter.
wu ming Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
wait, you moved to merced?
oh well here’s the local one her name is Cathleen Galgiani and lo and behold there’s a link to support hsr right on the front of her website!
Another fact that seems to stay under the radar—gas prices may hit $5 a gallon this year:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gas-prices-20120207,0,2589101.story
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 8th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
I took a look at the comments section of that story, and it should make almost all of us (with a very few exceptions) feel proud that things can be discussed here in a civilized manner. I look at what those people have to say, including those who might be rail supporters, and I wonder if their mothers ever taught them anything about respect. They largely sound like Jim SF’s “biggest bunch of sourpuss crybabies on earth.” Whew!
And besides, most of us here are not only more polite, but we write and spell better. . .
JJJ Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 1:26 am
Phft, the media is just picking up the prediction I made on January 20.
http://stopandmove.blogspot.com/2012/01/gas-prices-will-probably-break-records.html
And this was BEFORE big oil announced they were cutting 50% of their east coast refining production. What’s that, you missed the article? I’m not surprised, it barely got any play.
“”On January 18, Hess announced the closure of its HOVENSA joint venture refinery in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a major source of product supply to the East Coast,” the Energy Department said. “That planned closure follows on the heels of the idling of two refineries in the Delaware Valley by Sunoco and ConocoPhillips and announced plans by Sunoco to idle another refinery in the region by mid-2012.”
The Energy Department added, “The complete idling of the three refineries would collectively cut as much as 50% of current East Coast refining capacity.”"
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-gas-prices-20120130,0,3885077.story
The virgin islands one was the 3rd biggest in the US. And just like that, it’s closed.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iAixkdztUDVP5hsNlIf2oVc-31XA?docId=0251c6eb58a94bc9887495cb2700f948
*conspiracy theory time, please put on tin hats*
->Closed refineries = higher prices = blame the president = Obama election loss = bigger oil slave in office = $$$
-> Closed refineries = higher prices = we must do something to stop these increases = “less regulation for oil!” “drill baby drill!” “tax breaks for oil!” = $$$
*remove hats*
Paul Dyson Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
How does that compare with inflation say over 30 years? How does that compare with average fuel consumption of a typical family car over the same period? Gas prices are far higher in Europe and yet the roads are crowded. $5 per gallon won’t drive people to public transportation unless the product is superior for the journey they wish to make.
J. Wong Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
I suppose “superior” can mean cheaper. The last gas price spike did increase ridership on the Caltrain shuttles to SRO, and I’m supposing by extension, increased ridership on Caltrain.
joe Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Wow so many questions.
So pray tell, You tell me what you’ll cut in your budget to pay for 5.00 a gallon gasoline fill-ups.
We’ll use more Caltrain VTA and carpooling.
So now HSR astroturfers are aligning themselves with the sprawl lobby. How wonderful.
For those who don’t already know, the California Alliance for Jobs is the group that lobbies for billions in taxpayer dollars for highways and sprawl. They have zero interest in smart growth, just pouring more concrete and bulldozing farmland.
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 8th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Is that much of a surprise? How many comments have been posted on these boards arguing that HSR should serve as a CV-SF commuter service?
(Of course trains never, ever lead to sprawl and stimulate the development of local transit, as this commuter rail station in Naperville clearly demonstrates.)
Joey Reply:
February 8th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
I don’t think encouraging people to commute 100+ miles is a good idea, especially since commuter pricing tends to do not-so-good things to farebox recovery.
flowmotion Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Nobody’s going to commute 100 miles. The “one percent” of top executives will shuttle to and fro the back office in Fresno via hitech HSR. The other 99% will get in their cars and drive to work from their single family central valley estate, requiring new freeways/walmarts/etc.
joe Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
I call bullshit.
I commute 100 miles round trip to PA daily and we use Caltrain and car pool.
Time is what matters.
For a ride to Palo Alto, Fresno is closer than Caltrain- Gilroy according to the time tables. It’s not even close.
Commuting 100 miles vs 1+ million for a 1,100 sq ft 1940′s bungalow.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Joe might be right; the commuter train in my area runs from Washington, DC to Martinsburg, W.Va., a distance of about 75 miles; running time is just about two hours. The Capitol Limited, running the same route, covers the distance in an hour and a half, making far fewer stops. This is on a route that is shared with heavy freight trains, including huge coal trains.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=360711&nseq=17
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=309434&nseq=53
As it used to be in the late 1980s–bet Syn will like this:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=294238&nseq=71
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
A few more:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=290102&nseq=72
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=271059&nseq=84
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=212672&nseq=139
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=219381&nseq=112
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=210962&nseq=141
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=184150&nseq=174
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Freight at Harpers Ferry, W.Va.:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=317584&nseq=56
As it once was:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=55532&nseq=461
Capitol Limited:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=158144&nseq=257
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=278880&nseq=5
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=321465&nseq=47
flowmotion Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 12:00 am
> For a ride to Palo Alto, Fresno is closer than Caltrain- Gilroy according to the time tables. It’s not even close.
Get real. If this gets built, there’s no way Gilroy will be stuck with “Caltrain” (as is). They’ll have HSR service and will be at a significant advantage over Fresno.
However the point is, many of those jobs aren’t staying in Palo Alto. They’ll move to Gilroy or Fresno or whatever, and the employees will move with them. Thanks to HSR, they’ll be able to live the suburban dream, complete with all the car-oriented infrastructure required.
Brian Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 12:43 am
The amount of parking at the Naperville station kind of reminds me of a suburban BART station like East Dublin / Pleasanton. Considering the BART station’s parking garage the parking counts might actually be about equal.
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
According to the RTA, as of 2008 there were 4,089 spaces, all occupied every weekday—don’t know how that compares to East Dublin/Pleasanton, but in either case the land use aspects of this are pretty horrendous.
For what it’s worth, center-running BRT has been proposed for the IL Route 59 median, though how passengers will get from the median to their destination has been left unsaid.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
According to Wikipedia the station is in Aurora. It’s an infill station, keeps the cars away from the station in Downtown Aurora or the station in Naperville.
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
“Downtown” Naperville doesn’t look much different—although it “only” has 1350 spaces. Surprisingly, though, it also has an 18% transit mode share—if they were to have a garage in this station that would likely go down (and God forbid the city try to upzone nearby).
joe Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Naperville was once a sleeping farm town. The commuter rail line allowed the city to grow. Then the city gained jobs and isn’t the commuter town it was in the 70s. People work in Naperville.
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Some of that 18% taking the bus might be reverse commuters—I know Metra has some reverse commute service from Chicago and the inner-ring suburbs to Naperville, but it’s not nearly as strong as the reverse services north to Lake-Cook Road.
Peter Baldo Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
If you’ll zoom out a bit, you’ll see that pretty much everything on that stretch of the Naperville-Aurora border has been paved over. The Metra parking lot is a small accommodation to an unfortunate reality, and it does keep lots of people off the highways leading to Chicago. Naperville and the other communities on the BNSF line run lots and lots of buses to the stations. They have taxis for people who work late at night. They have bike paths and places to park bikes. Give them credit for trying. They’re actually the good guys.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 1:51 am
The CV-SF commute bit isn’t really sprawl-inducing, because the few commuters who would be able to afford to take advantage of the train would necessarily have to live fairly close to the train station. To me, the most worrying bit is Robert’s repeated invocation of the Interstates and of signature road projects such as the Golden Gate as examples to follow rather than to avoid. It’s to a large extent rhetorical – when push came to shove, Robert helped campaign against the Seattle tunnel – but there are enough hazards that came out of the Interstates that could very easily port to a transit revival. A transit revival would not lead to more sprawl or more road usage, but it could just lead to vertical gated communities, split communities, local governments deprived of tax revenue and forced to spend their money on transportation subsidies, and a preference for greenfield projects over fixing up run-down areas (see e.g. Hudson Yards).
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 9:48 am
“sprawl lobby” really? Land use and zoning is done by local elected officials. Cities and Counties make decisions about growth based on tax revenues and public input. If a city such as Merced or Fresno or any other, large or small, experiences sprawl, its a result of local decisions, not the fault of hsr or caltrans. There is nothing to stop localities from making good decisions, and futher, with hsr stations mainly being located in the downtowns, then growth, which is not the same as sprawl, can be directed there if locals so choose.
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 11:45 am
Look at the photo they have on their transportation advocacy page. The text’s a hoot too:
Big-time sustainabilities advocates, aren’t they? Their environmental reform agenda’s quite precious too:
Sounds like they’re all for clean air and fewer CO2 emissions, doesn’t it! Indeed, instead of spending all that money on useless projects like improving air quality and dealing with toxic waste, Californians should spend that money on useful things:
Sounds like a nice, progressive organization to me! With friends like these…
synonymouse Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 11:08 am
Let me issue a challenge to Robert and the cheerleaders: address the fact that the putative political supporters of hsr are in fact beyond fair weather friends – they are actually dead weight. The ragtag opponents of hsr, including the reviled NIMBY’s, and some Republican ideologues, actually are more interested in and know more of the substantive details of hsr than its advocates.
Kudos to Clem for taking the time to ferret out the gruesome details of what I will call the Tejon Travesty. Gratuitous curves, detours, impediments to placate nebulous nimby’s of the future. We know the dumbdown here was artificially aggravated to guarantee and validate rejection, but the pattern of obsequious compromise and downgrade is doubtless going to pop up elsewhere and throughout PB’s hsr.
What does this indicate about the nature of the campaign for hsr? That its supporters have about nil effective interest in its success and viability. They only view it as an opportunity to buttress their political fortunes by funneling monies to their friends in the consultant-contractor-labor complex. To them in reality hsr is superfuous, irrelevant. They are not going to use it any more than they use Muni, BART, Amtrak. Other than very occasionally as a photo-op prop as part of campaign pr. So they don’t care if an immensely well connected property baron wants to embargo the key and correct route. tough shit But if you want to screw with a freeway they and their friends use or mess up their experience at the airport they will be on the mundane details of the case pronto.
Once again from the top, as demonstrated by their real world conduct over and over, the political cheerleaders of hsr not only anticipate a boondoggle, they want one. #1 phoney foamer – Moonbeam.
Even now after the housing bubble burst, new homes are being built up and down the central valley. There is no hsr, yet the the cities continue to approve this type of development because these are the homes that people want And people are paying 200-300k for them. Has nothing to do with hsr.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 10:19 am
They are the houses the zoning allows. If you are looking for a place to live and the zoning only allows stucco covered single family houses and vinyl siding covered single family houses or brick veneer covered single family houses, your choice is a single family house or living under a highway overpass.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 10:50 am
Yes and point is that zoning is a local decision made by local elected officials and local residents who attend planning meetings and local voters who vote on local measures. In other words, its what people have said they want. To say that hsr or the highway lobby is responsible is to let the people who make the decisions off the hook. No one is forcing city councils, city and county planning commissions, and local voters, to choose this kind of development. If the people of Merced or Fresno or Dinuba, wanted to do things differently, they could, with no problem. They just don’t want to.
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 11:35 am
Who do you think has more pull on county planning commissions—developers looking to make more sprawly single-family subdivisions or sustainability advocates looking to upzone already-settled areas?
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
These people are adults. They are elected and they have to answer to their constituency. They are hel[less babies unable to make decisions or think for themselves. I don’t by the “helpless against developers” argument. the responsibility lies with them. If they people don’t like the results, they can vote them out. If they don’t get voted out then it means there aren’t enough people who disagree or who think its important. And that’s how democracy works. Most people out here just do not want high density. They just don’t and you can’t really force it on them. Andit has nothing to do with high speed rail.
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Do you think most adults would accept higher density in the Bay Area in exchange for a marathon commute from the Central Valley?
Land-use decisions aren’t typically made democratically—there’s a layer or two of appointees and civil servants standing between your tiny, low-voter-turnout elected town hall and the people who approve projects. And when it comes to land use and housing policy, do you think everyone’s equally consulted, or that people with an interest in sprawling out (new developments to sell!) or keeping things as is (no risk of a new development coming in and undercutting everyone’s rents!). And other actors outside government play a role, too—banks are often unwilling to finance non-strip mall type-developments, even in places like Portland and Chicago (those parking decks surrounding all the new development around the Loop are requisites for getting financed).
Look at it this way—adults in elected representatives to make the Interstate highways. Does that mean the voters gave the interstates carte blanche to tear through their neighborhoods and increase particulate pollution levels?
flowmotion Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Certainly the “fix is in” on most suburban planning boards, they’re stocked with real estate developers and various cronies.
But let’s not kid ourselves. The Central Valley is not full of people who desire a urbane townhome lifestyle. Much of their population growth has come from people fleeing the density of LA & the Bay Area. People there firmly believe that single family homes and restrictive zoning is the best property investment, and they vote to uphold it.
Matthew B Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 9:20 am
Uh, no. I think the link a few posts ago is the reason people move to the central valley: [url=http://www.newhomesdirectory.com/CentralValley/Communities/]prices in the mid $100,000s for a 3-4 bedroom house[/url]. If you would build densely and increase housing supply closer to where jobs are located and in safe neighborhoods, people could maybe afford to live there.
Matthew B Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Most Americans want a walkable neighborhood, not a big house.
http://www.good.is/post/most-americans-want-a-walkable-neighborhood-not-a-big-house/
jimsf Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 11:04 am
You cant do it because you can’t get the price low enough. If people are going to pay 350-550k for a condo or townhouse in sf or silicon valley, and thats what they cost in a good market, they will be urban profressionals but not families. They are going to want more house for that kind of money. I know that the view among young urban people is different, but those of you (us) who live in la and sf, have a very skewed view of reality in the rest of the country.
joe Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Adults in the Bay Area refuse to allow higher density.
CARRD and Morris would shit their pants before letting high density replace single family homes in their neighborhoods.
I am for removing parking requirements which foster non-walkable development but jamming people into high density requires authoritarian rule.
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Or a freer market—it’s not question of jamming people in, it’s a question of giving people the choice of living those higher densities.
Matthew B Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 9:21 am
And freedom to property owners to maximize the value of the development on their land by building densely.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Or libertarian rule, let the property owners decide what to do with their property instead of having the State decide.
flowmotion Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 12:07 am
If you can find a “libertarian” who wouldn’t mind if a pig farm opened next door, then maybe someone might care.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 12:31 am
It would cost too much to open a pig farm in Palo Alto. Tear down the 30′s faux hacienda and put four apartments on the lot, that might make money.
flowmotion Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 3:37 am
Bad example, because Palo Alto is Democrat.
But it doesn’t matter, because almost nobody puts their pamphlet ideology over there personal property values.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Because they have been told all their lives that “those” people, whoever they are, live in something other than a single family house with a white picket fence and two cars in the garage. S’kay these day if there’s tofu in the pot instead of a chicken.
wu ming Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
zoning is also done to benefit greenfield real estate speculators who finance central valley local and county political campaigns, as well as to desperately try to get enough developer fees to pay for public services that have been undercut for decades by prop 13′s strangulation of property tax and local parcel tax revenue. it has been this way since the early 80s. change the way that cities and counties get their revenue, and the way that campaigns are financed, and different interests might take precedence in local politics.
wu ming Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
to clarify: the reason why sprawl is necessary to finance local government is that old developments have theior property tax valuations locked in, but new ones start at a higher base level, plus you can add mello-roos fees and developer fees, which are then used to pay for the running of local government, which then drives a need for yet more greenfield new developments to pay for the services for the recent developments. it’s exceptionally unsustainable, but prop 13 makes it make short-term sense to governments without better options.
jimsf Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
AGain it comes back to people caring enough to change it. And apparently they don’t care enough to change it. They want their nice house and their backyard bbq and their pool. Hell I want mine too. If i lived in SF then a condo would be fine, but now that Im in the valley and house shopping. I totally want a nice faux spanish style stucco home with a nice yard with some italian cypress and queen palms.
flowmotion Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
The other 49 states have just as much sprawl as California, even without prop13 type property tax rules.
Gov. Jerry Brown met with U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Feb.9 2012 reaffirming support for California High Speed Rail.
Paul Dyson Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
A “strong base of support” from a carefully selected audience.
Almost exactly two years ago at the DoT “Transportation Reauthorization Outreach Tour” in Los Angeles I told LaHood and 300 other folks that due to CHSRA mismanagement we were in danger of ending up with $1 billion worth of studies and plans and nothing else. LaHood said I was “ridiculous.” We’ll see how the story ends but I stand by what I said. At the same meeting I criticized Boxer for attacking the chair of Metrolink for not adding a second engineer to their trains post Chatsworth. I told her there had been plenty of accidents with two in the cab and followed up with details, but of course got no reply. She was pissed. You’re not supposed to criticize these people in public.
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 11:45 amCostly regulations that do not produce benefits for the public have negative consequences. They consume taxpayer dollars needed for public infrastructure projects such as fixing roads and bridges, delay transportation projects, eliminate much-needed jobs, and hurt an already ailing economy.The public loses in the end by way of worsened road conditions, increased safety issues and high vehicle maintenance costs
What they say is true though. That’s why they say it. And they are correct.
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
The big regulations that prevent the construction of new roads in urban areas are the clean air provisions in federal funding. Read through the issue pages at rebuildca.org again—they’re primarily about roadbuilding. Now look at their donors. The whole point of the organization is to build for building’s sake—the reason they support CAHSR is because it’s something to build, not because of any rail-specific benefits.
Almost inevitable, the House has pushed back implementation of PTC for 5 more years.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTo8dIDgNImMPNt6NUneY-6gAQxQ?docId=8f96bee9705c4dfdaf9224ea1caa1ba1
However,
Feinstein said she knew of no independent reports or research demonstrating a need for a delay and that every passenger rail system has submitted a plan to meet the deadline.
“I am aware that deploying modern rail safety systems comes at a cost,” Feinstein said in a written statement. “But I believe there could be a far greater cost to human life if we choose to delay implementation of this critical safety technology.”
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Well, maybe Caltrain can now be convinced to dump CBOSS in favor of ERTMS. Or maybe at least V-ETMS.
airfares double in price will it happen in Ca?
Sobering Reality Reply:
February 13th, 2012 at 11:46 am
The story doesn’t hold up.
Round trips in March after Southwest leaves are $220.
Oops.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 13th, 2012 at 11:53 am
I thought they made great big gooey gobs of money on short flights like Philadelphia to Boston.
“It’s just a route that wasn’t profitable for us. With the cost of fuel and the economic downturn we just decided to discontinue that route,” said Southwest Spokeswoman Ashley Dillon
A round trip by train from Boston to Philadelphia without stops [acela business class] costs about $200, according to the Amtrak website, and takes about five hours to complete – about the same amount of time that a one-stop plane trip takes for the route.
The direct trip, via the Acela Express, often appeals to business commuters, said Amtrak Spokesman Cliff Cole.
“Speaking generally, most of the people who use the Acela are people using it for business. They appreciate the convenience,” he said, adding that train stations tend to involve easier security and less wait time than airports.
He said it would be difficult to predict whether or not ridership on Boston-Philadelphia routes will increase after Southwest Airlines drops the direct route.
Sophomore Lisa Vittorio, a CAS student from the Philadelphia area, said she uses Amtrak often. “It’s just easier to get to the train system,” she said. “And with flights you have to book it early to get a good deal, so the train is usually cheaper.”
Peter Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Hopefully Amtrak is fast-tracking the acquisition of extra Acela cars…
Jonathan Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
*What* extra cars, and from whom? And what will haul them? One can’t just plonk lots more cars into an Acela trainset; it’ll slow down. The Acela power cars were built with Alsthom motors (now obsolete) and Bombardier bodies. The HHP-8s are similar, but not identical; and they have terrible reliability…
One could pay Bombardier to make more tilt-train cars. If they still have the original designs and know-how. Otherwise, one might have to pay them to reverse-engineer, or come up with a new design.
Clem Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Learn to use the Googles.
jim Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Until there’s actually an RFP on the street, Amtrak can change its mind (and even after that).
HSTSheldon Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Actually Jonathan. There is exactly such a plan to extend the 6 coach Acela trainsets to 7 coaches. Certainly more difficult than simply coupling with a knuckle coupler but not impossible. Why not Bombardier, the original manufacturers of the coaches which are based loosely off the LRC coaches used in Canada. Are you telling me they simply forgot how to make coaches? An extra car can probably be hauled with the same power locomotives albeit at the cost of slower acceleration and probably slightly lower top speed.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Actually, I think Amtrak has had this in mind for some time, probably for at least a year. Those power cars are rated at 6,000 hp each; that’s 12,000 hp for a 6-car train. My guess is the power cars have oomph to spare, even with the train being heavier than its European or Japanese counterparts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express
http://www.amtrak.com/media/acela/acelaTour.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Bit of history–a predecessor to the Acela, the Canadian LRC train:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRC_(train)
Preservation:
http://www.trha.ca/LRC/
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
They’ve had it mind since it was the PRR and NYNHH running through trains.
My memory is getting really hazy, it’s been over a decade.. the plan was to get Acela up and running, show how popular it was, get Acela IIs up and running to replace the Regionals. That we would be looking at Acela IIIs by now not warmed over Toasters and Amcars.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
A variation on what Amtrak had planned: John Stilgoe, in his book “Train Time: Railroads and the Imminent Reshaping of the United States Landscape,” had a comment that the Acela was indeed meant as a prototype–and this prototype wasn’t meant just for the NEC, but to also be operated over what would eventually be electrified freight lines. Imagine a longer intercity Acela running a modern Chicago-Denver “Denver Zephyr” service over an electrified BNSF! What would the running times be?
Could it be this scenario–high speed trains running on lines shared with freights–is what drives the FRA requirements so many find onerous here?
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
I’d guess not much more than current speeds—from what I understand, the main limit right now is track condition. And it would still be a sleeper service—although I know Zierke’s proposal gets a lot of love, there’s still the issue of sleeper service being expensive to run due to high staffing and equipment costs. I’m skeptical about it—I’m pretty sure Stilgoe was talking about service on the Empire Corridor, Virginia or some of the Amtrak+ routes.
From what I can tell, the big thing that keeps FRA weight regulations in place is inertia—Amtrak and the various commuter lines are satisfied with their subsidies and service levels and don’t really see any need to improve service. People sometimes argue that if all of them ganged up on the FRA we might see some reform, but the hard truth is most of them really don’t care.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Amtrak does have a budget request for 40 more Acela cars to expand the existing trainsets to an 8-car configuration:
http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=78989
I couldn’t figure out how to get the budget request to link to here directly (what came up was actually a PDF file), but a link to it is on this page (first item); the reference to the Acela cars is on page 23 in the document itself:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=amtrak+2012+budget+request
D. P. Lubic Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Clem beat me to the punch while I was looking the paper up. . .in the meantime, I have something a little different above, Amtrak’s draft of the 2012 business plan.
News story:
http://www.hsrupdates.com/news/details/Amtrak-seeks-22-billion-in-FY12-proposes-to-add-Acela-cars–772
What I find disappointing on this blog, and in politics in america in general nowadays.. and I remember a time when it wasn’t like this.. is the amount of negativity not just from the naysayers, but from supporters. Whether its health care, or high speed rail, or whatever, everyone has an opinion, fare enough, but once a plan has been crafted, instead of compromising and being supportive, everyone sees fit to not only armchair quarterback, but to takek their marbles and go home because they didn’t get what they thought was best, or they didn’t get “everything” they wanted, or they don’t like the people who made the decision so its a personal vendetta. Like terrible two year olds, Americans have become impossible to manage, please, or reason with. No matter th issue. Its not wonder nothing gets done when the response is “i didn’t get my way so I don’t want to play anymore”
The hsr plan is going to move ahead as planned. it just is. The smart thing to do if we want hsr is to be supportive. Its a good plan. Perfect, not in some peoples eyes. But we can argue till the cows ocme home over who wants what route and someone will always disagree. You will never please everyone. So be supportive and stop whining. Lets get this thing going.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
50 years ago the plans were drawn up to please rich old straight white men. It was expected that everybody else would go along with what rich old straight white men wanted. Most of the complaining, whining, taking their marbles home and holding their breath until they are blue is being done by rich old straight white men. Or people who defer to rich old straight white men. Real Americans(tm) in other words.
Beta Magellan Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Jimsf, you don’t think decades of bad transportation planning decisions—most egregiously in the case of the interstate highways’ intrusions into urban areas, but also in mass transit (if transit advocates had the same attitude as you, BART would have run elevated through Berkeley)—have fostered attitudes like the ones you described?
jimsf Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 11:12 am
no i dont think that because what I see is aninterstate system that is the backbone of american commerce, and transit systems in all of our great cities from new york to chicago to washington dc, and others, being used my millions of commuters who rely on them, and they work just fine. Countless commuter railroads, that work. Light rail systems, that work, extensive bus systems that millions rely upon. If all you want to do is bitch and moan that everything was done wrong, whats the point. SO many want tus to beleive that the sky has fallen. it hasnt. And it isn’t going to.
flowmotion Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 12:03 am
Great bit of self-criticism, JimSF. Bravo.
joe Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Adults in the Bay Area refuse to allow higher density.
I don’t blame them. As a long time bay area resident, I can say that until the rest of the state does its part to absorb more of the population growth, the bay, especially SF should not have too. why should I have my city and quallity of life ruined just because ideolouges want to dump more people on top of me.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Uh-huh…remind me again of the population of NorCal vs SoCal?
joe Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
I agree. Citizens have a right to refuse to allow zoning changes within their towns and living with the consequences. I disagree with locals walling off the transportation corridors that pass across their towns. There’s obviously a balance between local and regional interests but infill requires local consent.
I and my wife left 2 flat SF/Noe Valley for old town Gilroy as that SF neighborhood changed after the dot-com boom. We moved to an old home with trees and alley with yard and garden. We have a local bus service and inter-town bus service – minimal Caltrain and decent walk-ability.
Joey Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Having concentrated density rather than sprawl increases efficiency in a lot of ways.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
February 9th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Uh-huh…remind me again of the population of NorCal vs SoCal?
Much of northern california is not densely popuated. northern california is everything from from the montery-merced line to the oregon border. But I was referring to San Francisco which ranks at #6 in density in california, versus LA with ranks at 23. My point being that Fresno, Merced, Sacramento, Livermore, San Jose, Bakersfield and others need to step up and catch up.
hello reading and comprehension skills please.
Matthew B Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 9:43 am
Your comparison of SF and LA is more based on how municipal boundaries are drawn rather than density over a metro area. LA is by far the bigger and more dense of the two, but both could benefit from increased density. I would propose eliminating parking minimums, allowing all lots within a quarter mile radius of transit stations to build to 8 stories at the discretion of the property owner, and 4 stories within some reasonable definition of a broader central city. There is not a clear correlation between (lack of) density and quality of life, but there is a clear environmental and fiscal argument for smart density.
Alon Levy Reply:
February 10th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
LA and SF’s metro areas are a wash on perceived density in the sense of Gary Barnes and the Austin Contrarian. (The tables they have show SF as somewhat denser, but if you compare CSA to CSA, they’re almost exactly the same.)
More on proposed Amtrak changes in 2012:
http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2011/02/Big%20changes%20for%20Amtrak%20in%20Obamas%202012%20budget.aspx
How much of Amtrak’s increased January ridership compared to last year is caused by trains not having been cancelled by snow? Amtrak is doing well, which is precisely why there is no need to use misleading statistics.