LOS ANGELES — Despite deepening doubts about the cost and feasibility of a $70 billion high-speed rail proposed to cross California, the State Senate on Friday narrowly approved legislation to spend $8 billion in federal and state money to begin construction, starting with a 130-mile stretch through the rural Central Valley
The funding approved is for the B&C, or the Borden & Corcoran. I think that, even if the project is otherwise killed, benefit will be obtained from the B&C. First it will add track capacity to the existing San Joaquin line, including elimination of numerous grade X-ings through Fresno. Presumably such would enable greater frequencies as well as faster and reliable schedules for a service that has gained a reasonably high public acceptance.
Somehow, I think the environmental impact of the B&C will be far less than would be the case if a Disneyland looking overhead track structure were to be built near Mark Zuckerberg's place in Atherton and Cheryl Sandberg's in Menlo Park. Successful operations over the B&C, namely existing San Joaquins and HSR test trains may soften the public resistance by showing "it works", if in fact that is to be the case.
Mr. Harris' comments are awaited.
Posts: 9977 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Concerning Atherton, Menlo Park, and other places along the ex-SP's Penninsula line: I will refrain from commenting on the elevated, and therefore grade crossing free track which will host electrically powered trains that are not having to blow their horns that is being perceived by the local residents as being much more disruptive and noisey than the current ag-grade multiple grade crossing diesel powered trains carrying railroad. I leave it to people that have some acquainance with reality to draw their own conclusions.
The Phase 1 (B&C) runs from a point a few miles north of Fresno where the line will be adjacent to the BNSF line to Bakersfield, temporary end point I do not recall exactly. Since Fresno to Bakersfield is 110 miles and the Phase 1 is given as being 130 miles, is should be obvious that this section more than covers the distance between these two cities.
The line transitions from being parallel to the BNSF to being parallel to the UP just south of the crossing of the San Jacinto River. It then follows the UP on its west side through Fresno. South of town it turns to follow the BNSF again south of town. (The BNSF line is somthing like 3 to 6 miles west of the UP and highway 99 most of the distance between there and Bakersfield.) The line follows BNSF fairly closely the rest of the way to Bakersfield, with some deviations around towns.
It will not result in the elimination of any BNSF grade crossings through Fresno, as it does not follow BNSF through Fresno. It will result in the elimination of a lot of grade crossings in the railroads it does follow.
At some point later I will look up links for more information, but not right now.
There are a lot of fairly major decisions that appear to be approaching conclusions finally, but more than that I cannot say right now.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
SACRAMENTO, Calif.—After clearing a major legislative hurdle, California's proposed bullet train between Los Angeles and San Francisco still faces obstacles—including lawsuits and uncertainties over future funding—that could delay it for years.
Friday's narrow state Senate vote approving $4.7 billion in bonds for the train and related projects sends the funding bill to a likely signing by Gov. Jerry Brown, a proponent of high-speed rail. The vote helps ensure the state will get to keep $3.3 billion in federal matching money for its efforts to build the nation's first bullet train. Federal officials had warned the state it had to commit to the funds this year in order to use the money, which mostly came from President Barack Obama's 2009 economic-stimulus package
It appears that, as Mr. Pullman has immediately alliterates, Californians, or at least their elected officials, do what they must to ensure Federal funds do not get away. It further appears that both viability and public acceptance are taking the back row. Gov. Brown ain't Gov. Christie (NJ).
If the CAHSR project is meeting the resistance from NIMBY's along the "B&C" as The Journal reports, what is ahead when up against the San Mateo and Santa Clars Counties' A-List?
I'm sorry Mr. Harris, and I recognize and respect that you have staked the remainder of your career on the success of this project, but this simply looks like a non-start to me - and with public opposition rising by the day.
Here is additional Opinion filed today and that will appear in tomorrow's Journal:
Now fast forward two years. Public opinion has turned decisively against the train thanks to several reports by the state's legislative analysts and others that question the viability of the project. Even some Democratic legislators have gotten cold-feet.
Several polls show that if the train were put up for a referendum, voters by a two-to-one margin would pull the plug. And according to a new Field poll, the train could significantly dampen public support for Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown's millionaire's tax ballot initiative—enough to kill it.
Enough Democratic state senators from the Bay Area and Los Angles region had reported "concerns" about the authority's business plan to put the brakes on the train. Their "concerns," however, mainly stemmed from the fact that their districts weren't getting a slice of the pie. So Mr. Brown tacked on $2 billion of funding for regional rail projects, including $700 million to bail out, er, modernize Silicon Valley's insolvent Caltrain.
Posts: 9977 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: Having grown up a Native Son of the Golden State...
The California Legislature has never met a tax they did not want to impose, a benefit they did not want to give, or a project they didn't want to do.
It was true in the 70s. It's true today.
***********************
As mostly a life-long resident of Calif, I have to agree.
A recent newspaper article has suggested that Gov. Brown may not buck enviornmentalist concerrns for HSR, even though he continues to proclaim the huge number of jobs that will be lost if HSR is derailed. It could mean HSR is dead, but who knows.
As an initial supporter of Prop 1A, which told us HSR would cost Calif. 10 billion (30 billion for the entire project), I have to either laugh or cry at the 98 billion they say it will now cost. I'm starting to get knee-jerky whenever a politician comes on the air to tell us the vast number of jobs HSR will create. I think that's it..it's all about jobs, not a passenger rail system. Although new jobs is a nice feature of HSR, I think the primary focus should be on whether or not a high speed train is warranted and desirable, not how many jobs the project will create. If all they want are new jobs, I wish they would have a high speed project to plug up all the potholes and smooth out grated roads all over this state.
I guess I shouldn't be so cynical. The "creation of thousands of new jobs" proclamations are probably one of the few times politicians are speaking the truth. And, to follow, new jobs mean more and more incumbent politicians will be re-elected. It reminds me of Mencken's saying, "every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods".
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Enjoy the latest from conservative think tank Brookings Institution as noted by a Wall Street Journal columnist who implies this would be a better way to spend taxpayer $$$:
quote:There are indeed some people who should be worried about how many Californians will ride a completed high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco. But unless you own a great deal of stock in Delta or Virgin America, you're probably not one of them.
quote:High-speed rail development is an essential component of a forward-looking economic agenda that will immediately bolster California's job outlook and improve our economy in the long-term.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Brief passage:
Instead of focusing on an enormously expensive high-speed rail system, government should promote modern highway design for cars of the future
Agreement, anyone?
Words of wis-dumb brought to you by the consotorium of petroleum exporting countries.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the fifties flying cars were supposed to be a reality before the end of the twentieth century. Unfortunately by now we only seem to get flying cars due to pavement buckles caused by the current heat wave. Buses carrying Olympic teams got lost in London for 4 hours until they quit using their GPS and tried maps.
Is this self-driving car thing really a practical financial alternative to proven HSR technology? Is it an all-weather technology? Are we all going to be rich enough to afford cars that can use these systems? It is really a stretch of the imagination that self-driving cars will get the same number of people from LA to SF for less money than a train.
I'm still waiting for an automatic transmission that can both efficiently handle switchback mountain roads and not get stuck in 9" of snow. My good old stick shift does both well, but we got folks here with an auto BMW or Acura who fail. And do we really need drivers further insulated from the actual task of driving than they are now?
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
It's political position has been cited from end to end of the political map.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A few comments on California HSR: First I do not have near the knowledge that many of the contributors do concernng the operations, financing, construction, etc. of railroads. That is my disclaimer. But I did do a little research concerning transportation.
The Erie Canal was a dream of President Washington. President Monroe killed it by declaring the construction with federal help unconstitutional. New York state decided they didn't need the feds (is there a message for us today?) and proceeded on their own. Apparently the governorship changed hands and a Gov. Clinton proceeded but met heavy opposition. The wags of the day labeled the canal "Clinton's Folly". But he persevered and the canal was completed. Today with the advantage of historical hindsight we can see that the canal was a significant achievement in the building of the United States into a economnic power.
Fast forwarding to Taiwan. I viewed a channel 9 program on Taiwan's HSR. The main highway running the length of the island was all but impassable due to traffic congestion. So the Taiwanese did a study, talked to private and government entities and planned a HSR system to relieve the problem. They had all the issues we see with a big project, unions, ceo's politicos, environmentalists, money and so on. Their study determined that HSR would provide the lowest land use, highest transit volume, lowest pollution, highest energy efficiency, and lowest environmental impact. It took time and determinnation but after quite a few years (it was difficult to pin down an exact figure) the HSR line opened in 2007. The intitial planning started in 1990. The line is 214 miles long. It cost $18B. In 2010 41+ million rode it. The parallel commercial airline traffic is extinct. And they claim that the surface traffic on the "super highway" had been significantly impacted to the good. And great care was made to protect animal life, quality of property, and to provide a safe system.
I do not know how in the world California thinks that they can afford billions of dollars for their HSR project except it is the same old same old, let the feds pay for it, which is a euphemism for the rest of us to pick up the tab. That said I have to admire Taiwan and other European and Asian countries in that they saw a need and went ahead and built modern rail systems.
So I have to ask, "What is wrong with the United States?" I think that California should have HSR, as should the Chicago hub serving the major cities of the Midwest. But it appears as if we (The U.S.) cannot get anything done. And please don't blame the Tea Party. They are not the problem. They are a manifestation of frustration to a decades long history of spending money that we don't have. And that is serious and frightening.
So, in my humble opinion, I think that heavy investment in approppriate infrastructure is vital but it would seem that we need to correct the spending excesses in other areas first. Topugh proposition.
Posts: 140 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
California's bullet train was conceived 20 years ago from Quentin Kopp's infatuation with European high-speed rail. His beautiful brainchild, however, has since morphed into a monstrosity. Mr. Kopp seems more and more like the protagonist Victor Frankenstein of literary lore, disillusioned by what his ambitions have wrought.
Testifying in a lawsuit filed by Kings County, the 84-year-old retired judge of San Mateo County Superior Court says that California's present high-speed rail plan violates the ballot measure that he helped craft and voters approved in November 2008. In essence, he argues, the state pulled a bait-and-switch on voters.
Of interest, the columnist is a Member of the Journal Editorial Board. The column appears to have an "agenda" inimical to HSR interests.
I shall defer to Mr. Harris regarding accuracy of facts cited, which could possibly influence a reader's thoughts regarding this material.
Posts: 9977 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The GAO recently released an assessment of the CAHSR project that looks into the business plan and reports on how well the plan produces cost estimates that are accurate, comprehensive, well documented and credible. (There are specific definitions for each of those terms.) Overall, the GAO finds that the CAHSR substantially meets the requirements for accurate predictions and partially meets the requirements in the other 3 categories. The GAO notes that the FRA's guidelines and requirements for HSR project cost estimates do not fully meet GAO requirements for best-practices estimating and that the CAHSR authority is working to update its business plan with best-practices estimates.
The GAO report is concerned with the accuracy of the cost estimates and the soundness of other reports, like ridership projections. The GAO does not offer any opinions or advice about the necessity of the project or the political debate surrounding the feasibility of the project.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
Reviwing this material only reminds me of analogies that can be drawn under its new ownership between the Journal and Fox News. In the final sentence of George Orwell's "Animal Farm", this notion is well summed up:
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Posts: 9977 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
