It seems to be a very good piece on the breathtaking difficulty of getting high-speed rail going in California.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article noted by Mr. Kisor leads off with a quite pertinent "brief passage":
This is a story not about Amtrak but about trains, and the problem with any story about trains in America is that you often find yourself thinking about Amtrak, and you often find yourself thinking about how nice it would be if you weren’t thinking about Amtrak. This is especially true when you’re actually riding on Amtrak, which happened to be the case one morning in March when I boarded the Pacific Surfliner in downtown Los Angeles for a 500-mile trip, mostly up the coast, to Sacramento. Anyone who lives in California can tell you that this is folly: other ways of traveling from Los Angeles to Sacramento are quicker and less frustrating and not much more expensive. You can fly in 90 minutes for around $100. Or you can drive in six hours for less than $50 in gas. For $55, my Amtrak journey was scheduled to take at least 12 hours 25 minutes. With any luck, I would arrive there by 9 p.m. And it was fairly obvious to me that I would need some luck, because my ticket to Sacramento had not bought me a train ride, exactly, but a train-bus-train ride
Posts: 9982 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If one were to form an opinion from that article alone, one would assume that a rather large chunk of money is being spent arguing. Technically the project is very feasible, economically it looks good, yet people of various kinds are blocking any real progress.
Taking one example, UP "don't want a high speed line [on or near their land]". Yet the article mentions compulsory land purchase orders. Is the government of whatever level so corrupt that UP is effectively immune from such laws?
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So he took the Surfliner LA to Sacramento, including the bus part. Strange, I thought that train was the San Joaquins.
And having just driven from LA to Stockton, still an hour south of Sacramento, I would say a six hour drive would be at speeds well beyond the limit. It is 450 miles. But most everyone, trucks included, did pass us at our 75 mph speed. So perhaps we don't quite get it. Like the author of the article.
-------------------- Vicki in usually sunny Southern California Posts: 951 | From: Redondo Beach, CA | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The San Joaquin's have two trains a day that go to Sac from Bakersfield. Still have the bus ride from LA. Time wise, I found the San Joaquins a viable option to get from Modesto (90 minutes south of Sac) to Irvine when visiting a kid in college, as compared to driving and flying. That meant both time and money and my effort were comparable, or in combination better on the train. That is beyond what I would consider commuter or regional train travel, so in my opinion it can be done.
Buried in the article are hints at several reasons this will not be the same kind of project the interstate system was. Then, "progress" had a slightly different, more homogenous feel. Now, there are environmental studies to be completed and politicized, eminant domain issues to fight out for years in the courts, and as noted short-term, idealogical politicians to contend with. I think one glaring issue in California is our water situation (lack of storage, delivery, and source), and our elected yokels can't even begin to agree it's a problem. I am all for high speed rail, but IF it happens it will be decades before it makes it all the way from SF to LA.
Posts: 406 | From: La Grange, CA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
The land issue vis a vis UP has nothing to do with corruption. It is an issue of UP not wanting to lose a section of their right of way on which they pay property taxes – through the nose if they are asssessed the way RR property usually is and on which they have a huge potential liability. I would suspect that they have three reasons for their stance: 1. Loss of the ability to expand, as due to the growth in freight volume in recent years the need for second main where they never existed before is coming into play. 2. Liability. Given our rediculous tort system in this country, any derailment that involved excursions into the high speed railways right-of-way could result in an overwhelming cost by the time the lawyers got through. 3. Loss of access to potential industries along one side of their alignment. This one is not as big as it used to be, but is still a very real consideration. Since the railroad companies have the right to use eminent domain to obtain right of way, it also pits two agencies each having the right of eminent domain against each other.
The attitude of BNSF seems to be more cooperative, but then BNSF is handling the 6 daily each way California supported passenger trains now, and has been getting some state assistance, actually fairly minimal for capacity improvements on their line.
Since the UP line was built down the valley first, and I do not know when for either line, it is straighter and better located in relation to city centers along the line than the BNSF line, so before their respective attitudes became clear, there was a tendency to consider the UP alignment the more desirable to follow.
* * * * *
The California Farm Bureau has also come out against the project based on the loss of agricultural land and access between severed parcels. (Come on people: We are talking about a 100 feet more or less wide strip generally next to an existing railroad that would be taken out of farms that usually count their acerage in the thousands.)
There is a strong desire to build this system with the least possible disruption to everybody, even to the extent of impossibility. The expression, "Trying to cook breakfast without breaking eggs," comes very close to describing the thought process.
It is certain that there will be huge "environmental" objections to everything everywhere. A lot of it will likely even be dishonest. The propaganda being spread in the towns between San Francisco and San Jose is that the addition of two tracks and grade separation of everything will result in a loss of 30 feet to most of the adjacent property owners. The reality is that for most of the distance, the right-of-way is sufficient for the additional two tracks as it is right now and the proposed raising of the alignment to provide 100% grade separation of the cross streets will benefit everybody.
As to the trains the guy rode: It looks like he tried to pick the route of maximum aggravation. The way he described is viable, but seems that it would be unlikely to be used end to end. It is: Leave LA on train 799 at 7:30 am, arrive San Luis Obispo at 12:45 noon, change to bus scheduled to arrive at San Jose at 4:50 pm, get on Capitol Corridor train 544 at 5:50 pm, arrive Sacramento at 8:55 pm. This route really makes no sense for a Los Angeles departure if your destination is any point north of San Jose unless you just want to ride along the coast.
It would be far faster to go up the valley. Leave LA on the 7:35 am bus to Bakersfield, arrive 9:50 am, catch train 713, leave Bakersfield 10:05, arrive Stockton at 2:18 pm, catch the connecting bus to Sacramento, arrive Sacramento at 3:15 pm. In fact, you take the bus out of LA at 10:45 am and still get to Sacramento sooner than you could leaving at 7:30 am and going up the coast. The train time on the valley, 10:05 am to 2:18 pm gives you time for a good rolling lunch in the Cafe Car, as well.
George
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
