posted
Frommer's suggestion that CA will spend the money wiser conflicts with that States abismal financial record of the past 10-15 years.
Now they want to start the LA-SF project in the center of the San Joaquin valley. Talk about a train to nowhere. If built it will be a White Elephant for many years until (???) the entire project is complete, if ever.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
You are spending too much time listening to those that are opposed to any form of improved passenger service any time anywhere. Rather than let those people control your thought processes, I suggest that you do some investigation of what is being done and why.
This is the first piece not the whole thing.
First: Building this piece here comes under the heading of, if you can't do what you want to, you get as close as you can with what you are able to do. If you think you can do better, give the people who made the decision a call and tell them how. Otherwise you are simply Monday morning quarterbacking. I am trying to think of a nice way to say this, but can't so: Put up or shut up. The people involved in trying to get this thing going are dedicated and committed for the most part and doing the best that can be done within a lot of constraints that it is not worthwhile to try to explain to the Monday Morning Quarterback quibblers.
It is highly important to get something out there built so that people can see it and show that there is more to this thing than simply generating of reports.
Second: There is the "Independent Utility" / "Operational Independence" requirement associated with the ARRA funding. Simply put: The initial segment must be usable even if nothing else is ever built. That is a major part of the driver behind the location selection. Thus, the San Joaquin trains must be able to get on and off it. That requirement has a lot to do with the end points selected.
Here are a few things publically available on the California HSR web site that relate to the whys of the selection of this particular section:
quote:the Authority was informed by the FRA that all allocated funding, namely the FY10 funding and the remaining unobligated FY09 ARRA funds must be applied to final design and construction of one of two Central Valley sections (Fresno to Bakersfield or Merced to Fresno) of the California High-Speed Train System.
Also mentioned in the memo were other factors, such as sequencing of the work, testing, and
Third: There will be ridership. It may not be great, but it will be there. This segment goes through the largest city in the Valley, Fresno that has over a million people, and sometimes sees as many as 100 people on and off a single San Joaquin train.
San Joaquin trains on this segment will be able to go as fast as the equipment will allow rather than be limited to 79 mph. In addition, this track will be the break in and test track for the high speed equipment.
Due to the curves in approach to Fresno and the BNSF-UP crossing at Calwa, this section of the BNSF line used by the San Joaquin trains has a number of speed restrictions that are well below 79 mph.
Specifics concerning the location selected: There were several things involved in selecting a section that combined a the south part of Merced to Fresno and the north part of Fresno to Bakersfield, that would be difficult to explain, and I am not sure that I should even if I could get it all said correctly.
The high speed rail alignment in this area generally follows the BNSF for most of the distance, but of course with much larger radius curves. The location of the named end points, Borden and Corcoran, in relation to the BNSF route current used by the San Joaquin trains is: Borden is about 1.5 miles south of Madera, which is at milepost 1019.6 on the BNSF. Fresno station is at milepost 998.1 on the BNSF, and Corcoran is at 950.9 on the BNSF.
The actual location of the north end may be somewhat flexible, depending upon the results of the alignment studies in this location.
Keep going south from Corcoran and you get to Bakersfield, BNSF milepost 888.0, in another 62 miles, which can be promptly put under construction as soon as funds are available. I would suspect that this would be the next piece to get built, but it is only a guess on my part, and I have absolutely no part in any decision making on the subject of what gets built when. * * * * Yes, I will admit that I did take it somewhat personally. The California HSR happens to be where I am currently working. Therefore, I have to be pretty careful about what I say concerning the project in total and such things as this. I will say that in the group I work in there are people dedicated to seeing this project succeed and to be the best that it can be to the point of near fanaticism, and many of these people have very broad experience that is relevant to the work involved in this project.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
George, when would this first segment actually start to carry passengers? I would be willing to make a trip out there just to ride on it. It is way more of an attraction than Disneyland for me.
posted
George, Good to hear from you, its been a while.
From our past communications I feel certain your education and skills will serve your project well and I always appreciate enthusiasm from those who take on difficult tasks.
Only time will tell if my apprehensions are well founded.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Suffice to say, the Board has their fun with "The B&C"
Consider the case of California, which is one of the states getting cash for trains that the Midwesterners didn't want. Earlier this month its high-speed rail authority approved construction on the first 65-mile segment of a 500-mile bullet train. The first miles will connect the small towns of Borden and Corcoran in the Central Valley for a mere $4.15 billion. Yes, that's billion.
One other detail: The segment won't even begin operating until more of the line is completed, which on present trend could be never. Read on and weep
While I realize that I'm not exactly the strongest pro-rail voice around here (I'm really only anti-LD), and even though Engineering does "not exactly' appear within my CV, I can understand why the project should start with "The B&C".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think many people see these as tourist trains. Many people who work in metropolitan areas and have long commutes is because they moved to escape high property taxes. Know will we build these systems just for those people or will they add multiple stops. if they do that the slower the rail is going to take. In the NY area as gas prices rise the price of public transportation grows double.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One more reason that I haven't bothered to look at a Wall Street Journal in years, aside from its insufferable Inflated Self-Importance. This article is not slanted, it is nearly 90 degrees off from level.
Holding a view that is in opposition to that of the WSJ not only does not bother me, it is part of checking to see if I am aiming in the right direction.
These two small towns bracket the largest city in the valley, Fresno with over a million people. Getting the line through this city is very high on the list of reasons to select this portion, and the Fresno station and the structure through the city represent a major portion of the segments cost. The $64 million per mile average cost is not for building a line that is a simple double track railroad across cornfields.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: This article is not slanted, it is nearly 90 degrees off from level.
Mr. Harris; OPINION vice article.
Otherwise, I too hold that The Journal's Op-Ed is some kind of Looney Tunes; it was no different when the Bancrofts were 'at the throttle". But all told, I don't think Murdoch has messed up the news REPORTING all that bad....YET.
Oh well, the $460 for another year of "thump on the porch" (and on-line access) will soon be in the mail.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gil, you should keep the $460 in your pocket (way overpriced), and get your drivel free from your local Fox News outlet (worth every bit of free).
Full disclosure: I am a heavily opinionated former shareholder in CSX.
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OcalaMike- while CSX may be the railroad railfans love to hate, in the past year it has outperformed NS - and yes I do have a stake in it.
Regarding WSJ, it actually has some news in it unlike an increasing number of anemic newspapers in major cities. While it may not have the cachet of the strictly financial journal of old, I appreciate its recent appeal to the 'common man' with weekend features on books, entertainment, cooking, and travel. No doubt an effort to compete more head on with NY Times. One way or another I have always managed to beat the 'list' subscription price, which I agree is too high.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the direction of the NY Times daily circulation and subscription rates in recent years, I'm not sure they'll be much of a factor in any conversation by the end of this new decade.
2010 Daily Circulation (including paid Web accounts) New York Times: 950,000 -9% from '09 Wall Street Journal: 2.1 Million +1% from '09
As for HSR in California, I voted for that 20 Billion dollar bond measure, but now I'm having second doubts. I totally get that the Feds forced this Corcoran to Borden thing on the Authority, after the Authority had led all us voters and interested parties to believe the first leg to be constructed would be the far more useful and glamorous Anaheim to LA. What I don't get is what the Feds gain by forcing this nowhere route on the state.
It just seems like a boneheaded move by the Feds almost begging critics to brand it as a 4 Billion Dollar Train To Nowhere . If they had publicized back in '08 while campaigning for the bond measure that the first segment to use up all the federal funding would be Corcoran to Borden, the bond measure wouldn't have stood a chance.
This will become a HUGE issue in January when the new Congress is sworn in and settles down to work. The Feds seem to be baiting their critics on purpose, and that is truly baffling.
Posts: 56 | From: Orange County, CA | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I noted in my earlier response to Mr. Harris (and again I think it paramount that when material from a newspaper or other media is cited, careful distinction between an article, i.e. reporting of news, and an opinion "piece" is made), I fully understand why "The B&C" comes first. It will provide a test bed that can be built at relatively low cost ($$$ and environment) on which technical issues can be addressed over a rolling laboratory.
When complete, possibly some of the existing San Joaquins can be routed over the new trackage without interfering with on going testing of the HSR systems. It would be a good "PR" gambit for passengers to experience a 'Disneyland Ride" at whatever maximum speed the existing equipment is authorized.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The citation of newspaper circulation figures is somewhat incomplete.
There is an accounting rule that allows papers to count some subscribers twice when they receive both a print and electronic edition. The WSJ's 2.1 million circulation figure includes 450,000 electronic subscriptions. (The Times' figure does not.) The number of the WSJ's printed copies has been flat at 1.6 million for the last three years.
The Times, like many other large metro newspapers, has deliberately been killing expensive circulation (i.e. trucking to remote places) in order to cut costs. The WSJ has been spending heavily to increase its circulation numbers, but the jury is still out on whether these numbers mean increased profits or not.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
$64 million a mile seems exceptionally high for normal RR track, by a factor of 10. There must be a lot of payoffs required to get it done.
However, when you look at Houston's toy train to nowhere, it is not that bad. Houston paid $500 million for 7.5 miles of track from downtown to the Astrodome. That is over $66 million a mile. The most wasteful part of the deal was the Mickey Mouse platforms for $500,000 each. They look like fancy bus stops with a covered bench.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Kisor, as a professional journalist, what do you think of the concept I've heard floated about that newspapers, such as The Times, that clearly represent an institution, if they can no longer be sustaining as a business enterprise, adopt a not for profit model.
The biggest problem I would foresee is that people would hold "the government's in it' and of course the corollary to that is what kind of constraints could/should be in place to ensure "they stay out"?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The not-for-profit model does not seem to me to be realistic for a labor-intensive industry such as newsgathering. Probably it will have to be self-sustaining in some way, such as subscriptions to websites a la the WSJ.
I've thought that if subscriptions to a respected institutional newsgathering site such as the NYT and WSJ were expensable on one's federal income tax, as WSJ subscriptions are on the Schedule Cs of business people and investors as a cost of doing business, readers would be more apt to pay for their news. But would the income be enough for self-sustenance? I have no idea.
But who's going to decide which news institutions deserve tax expensing? The government will have to do that. And if the government favors the NYT and WSJ (and maybe the Boston Globe and WaPo), who's to say readers of the New York Post and other intellectually downmarket publications won't want the same?
And then we're getting into the Web . . . can you imagine writing Gawker off your tax return?
Possibly the NPR not-for-profit model might work. It gets no direct federal funds (as its more obtuse Congressional critics fail to admit) but is funded partly from contributions and partly from contracts with local public radio stations (which do get federal dough for their operations). In newspapering, buying articles and features (from the AP, WSJ, NYT and others) is called syndication, but so far that is a small part of the income stream.
As Confucius probably never said, we in the news biz are living in interesting times.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Subscriptions, print and as far as I'm concerned web, would be sold at market rates; there is nothing out there whatever precluding an NFPO - Not For Profit Organization - from realizing market rates for their services (I assure all that the Chicago Symphony does "not exactly' give away - save their one Freebie a year - their performances). The NFPO newspaper would continue to sell advertising (anyone think those NPR/PBS "sponsorship of this program....." ads are aired without charge?).
The major difference is that a newspaper granted Exempt Organization (that's an NFP in IRSese) status and accordingly converts to an IRC Sec 501(c)(3) corporation would be able to solicit tax-deductible (Individual on Schedule A) contributions from donors. I'm certain that if the newsgathering resources of an institution such as The Times were jeopardized, many would be prepared to step forth.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: $64 million a mile seems exceptionally high for normal RR track, by a factor of 10. There must be a lot of payoffs required to get it done.
It includes about 15 miles of elevated line through Fresno and the Fresno station. You are also dealing with quite a few overpasses/underpasses at roads. Remember, 100% grade separation from roads is part of the deal, and a necessity per FRA requirements for high speed tracks. (The only fatalities in TGV trains have been at road crossings on ordinary trains.)
The "payoffs" if you could define them as such are a mind-numbing list of environmental restrictions that would apply to anything, road or rail, including any work done on the existing railroad. Just ask BNSF who, a few years back, had to move - carefully - a number of bushes that were the "known habitat of an endangered species of beetle" as part of a bridge replacement in California. These things are not by choice, but by law.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
California has received more than $2.5 billion in federal funding to build the initial $4.3 billion stretch in the Central Valley, linking the towns of Corcoran and Borden. While the state's high-speed-rail plan calls for an 800-mile system from Sacramento to San Diego, officials are focusing on the main phase—a 520-mile span from the San Francisco Bay area to the Los Angeles/Anaheim area, proposed to be build and in operation by 2020 at an estimated cost of $42.6 billion.
Roelof van Ark, chief executive of the California High Speed Rail Authority, says the Central Valley link will be the "backbone" of a system and serve as a testing ground for high-speed locomotives. He says it is easier to start in the less-developed Central Valley because building there is less expensive than in urban centers and there are fewer landowners to negotiate with. Supporters also say the project will spur development and bring jobs to an area with high unemployment.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: $64 million a mile seems exceptionally high for normal RR track, by a factor of 10. There must be a lot of payoffs required to get it done.
It includes about 15 miles of elevated line through Fresno and the Fresno station. You are also dealing with quite a few overpasses/underpasses at roads. Remember, 100% grade separation from roads is part of the deal, and a necessity per FRA requirements for high speed tracks. (The only fatalities in TGV trains have been at road crossings on ordinary trains.)
The "payoffs" if you could define them as such are a mind-numbing list of environmental restrictions that would apply to anything, road or rail, including any work done on the existing railroad. Just ask BNSF who, a few years back, had to move - carefully - a number of bushes that were the "known habitat of an endangered species of beetle" as part of a bridge replacement in California. These things are not by choice, but by law.
You picked right up on my "payoffs" comment. That was exactly what I meant; the payoffs to the enviro-whacko section of our society..
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting that the two "anti's" quoted in the article were both California Democrats, one a US representative, the other a state senator who "heads a legislative committee overseeing the project." According to the congressman, who represents the Central Valley district whose south end is just north of the north end of this segment, starting with this segment "defies logic." (Maybe because he gets nothing out of it?)
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am confused; I thought the first section was supposed to connect Fresno and Bakersfield in anticipation of connecting Bakersfield to LA, the part that is most needed to link north and south?
Posts: 2642 | From: upstate New York | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is interesting on two fronts: firstly the educated opinions based on those who have worked in the industry both abroad and currently at home (GH), versus those that form their opinion on an uneducated broadsheet; secondly that PTC (if it would apply to the proposed first segment) is to all intents and purposes ETCS but designed to be completely incompatible with it (not invented here syndrome). I have yet to confirm the latter due to eye issues *forums are one thing; hundreds of pages of specs are another) but I do have that opinion on good insider authority, somebody who has experience with both ETCS and PTC.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sojourner: I am confused; I thought the first section was supposed to connect Fresno and Bakersfield in anticipation of connecting Bakersfield to LA, the part that is most needed to link north and south?
On to Bakersfield in the current concept. There were two things that left it out of the first piece.
First: The segment had to be located with end points that could be connected to the route currently used by Amtrak-California. Beginning in downtown Fresno did not do that. Teh Fresno station will be elevated, so you have the vertical challenge, and it is adjacent to the UP (ex SP) line through town, not the BNSF (ex AT&SF) line used by Amtrak.
Second: The Bakersfield station will also be elevated, as will the approach to it. There was no way that, within the available money that TWO elevated urban segments could be built. Adding to this, is the fact that Bakersfield is designed to be a through station, so it does not have the track capacity to be a terminus, even temporarily, and it makes no economic sense to do so since it would only be a terminus for a short period.
Bakersfield to Los Angeles, or at least to a temporary end atPalmdale so as to meet the end of Metrolink service should come next.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While still too early to make a final evaluation, it appears as if the Florida "HSR" project is on its way to joining those in Ohio and Wisconsin:
TALLAHASSEE — As Florida puts the brakes on its high speed rail plan, corporations from around the world are eagerly pressing for bragging rights as builders of the first such line in the United States.
The Florida Rail Enterprise has delayed advertising for proposals on a $70 million "early works" contract to prepare the Interstate 4 median for the line connecting Tampa to Orlando, which would have created about 2,000 jobs starting in March.
I continue to hold that the "$8B for HSR" provisions under ARRA'09 have done the rail passenger movement a disservice. If it was the intent of Congress to appropriate, and that of the President to concur, that $8B should simply have been allocated amongst existing rail passenger agencies (principally Amtrak, as it is big as all the others combined) to be used on projects of their discretion. No question whatever, the Amtrak allocation would have been largely applied to "shovel ready" projects on the Northeast Corridor.
Enhanced locally funded rail passenger service has simply become the whipping boy of newly elected conservative officials who have their constituents convinced "no one wants it:". Even if somewhat beyond the scope of applicable provisions of ARRA '09, that a New Jersey Governor would kill a rail project for which there is unquestioned need, does not bode well for the projects of quite dubious benefit being funded only in part under ARRA.
Apparently, New Jersey Governor Christie believes the way from one White House with a sign reading Drumthwacket outside to another with 1600 as a street address is by killing "needless' rail transport projects. Otherwise, I for one "smell the boondoggle meat a cookin'".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
