|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 8, 2007 14:50:32 GMT -8
Not neccessarily, they could purchase/lease/operate Electric Locomotives within that set-up with the existing Diesel Stock. In fact they can even add a few in-fill stations along busier corridors operating the electrics while the Diesels do more the longer distance non-stop runs again over a short term period until they can purchase new EMU's and phase them in once the network is fully electrified.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 26, 2007 11:45:09 GMT -8
sorry to break the flow somewhat, but I found a really interesting editorial on HSR today. since I moved up to the Central Valley a year ago, I've gotten a front row seat to the whole high-speed rail debate. the Valley is definitely interested in this project and communities like Visalia have been lobbying hard to get a station nearby. my argument has been (and I've written letters to this effect) that it simply just wouldn't be logical to have stations too close together for HSR (sort of like the MagLev line that some people want for southeast L.A. and for Orange County). a much better idea, IMHO, would be for the communities in the Valley to increase their transit, build Metrolink-style commuter rail or even light rail, and then use that to connect to the HSR station. the same principle basically applies to Los Angeles or San Francisco or whereever. so, I was pleasantly surprised when the Visalia Times-Delta pretty much echoed my position in this editorial: tinyurl.com/292wvu
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 26, 2007 13:53:00 GMT -8
Every modern Commuter Rail system needs to have Express Train Service. It is such a useful necessity to riders who might be willing to pay a bit more to stop less.
Under the current system, we're way behind in double tracking let alone triple and quadruple tracking for Express trains to pass the Regular Metrolink trains.
Express trains should go into the San Bernardino line first, as that is the most heavily used and would see the most benefits quickly.
The Metrolink lines we have today aren't living up to their full potential.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 26, 2007 17:01:44 GMT -8
^^Express trains? How about we double track it first? We still need a lot of work before we can start thinking about express trains.
Unless you think that they will increase revenue and make the projects for other lines more feasible.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jun 26, 2007 17:17:16 GMT -8
Every modern Commuter Rail system needs to have Express Train Service. It is such a useful necessity to riders who might be willing to pay a bit more to stop less. Under the current system, we're way behind in double tracking let alone triple and quadruple tracking for Express trains to pass the Regular Metrolink trains. Express trains should go into the San Bernardino line first, as that is the most heavily used and would see the most benefits quickly. The Metrolink lines we have today aren't living up to their full potential. Be nice, our Metrolink system is built around existing freight lines, double tracking would be difficult where there is not enough room. Without the freight lines, Metrolink wouldn't exist (except for most of San Bernardino Line's portion). Orange County's portion is at least adding a third track to allow bypassing of BNSF trains. Our system is big compared to San Francisco's CalTrain. Up there they have express trains and even faster service called the Baby Bullet.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 26, 2007 22:43:45 GMT -8
"It was the best of times; it was the worst of times..." for Metrolink.
express trains or at least limited-stop service would be an excellent idea for Metrolink, and there's really no reason why we shouldn't pursue it (assuming funds become available).
that said, Metrolink is a remarkably large system, and that size can be both a thing to be proud of and it could be a potential obstacle for future expansion.
San Juan Capistrano is an impossible bottleneck. fortunately, it is far enough south that it would be possible to asy "all express trains stop at Mission Viejo." but we do need to double track as much of the system as humanly possible even without express service, especially as Orange County is already talking about 30 minute service on its line.
but yeah, get the double tracking done first!
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 26, 2007 23:37:30 GMT -8
I think the one thing limiting the effectiveness of Metrolink and to a greater extent Amtrak, is Freight trains. The timing becomes a huge obstacle when it takes a long time for these trains to clear.
Also, there have been reports that freight train operators will stop the train and idle on the tracks for hours if they've worked past their shift. Wait for the next operator to arrive.
This is unacceptable. Commuter rail is different. It must be punctual, fast, and above all dependable.
Our system isn't perfect. But it's much better now. I think the run through tracks at Union Station are an excellent idea. How is this going to be implemented ?
I'm sorry, I missed tonight's board meeting. Something came at work and it took me the whole night to sort things out. Misplaced file.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 27, 2007 7:39:54 GMT -8
So the first candidate that would be up for double tracing is the San Bernadino Line I would think. So I could see how it could be double tracked, but I can see why it's being put off. That will be a lot of work to do on the 210. Is Metrolink eligible for any of the money from Prop B in order to start some of this work?
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Dec 19, 2007 23:54:35 GMT -8
I saw this today: Lawmakers Move Forward With LA To SF High-Speed Bullet Train SACRAMENTO -- The California High-Speed Rail Authority approved moving forward with the Pacheco Pass route for a bullet train connecting central California with the Bay Area. Funding is not in place for the $30 billion project but planners are trying to narrow down the route the train would take from Los Angeles to San Francisco.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 20, 2007 6:40:25 GMT -8
This is a major step forward, and although many will find this a rather bitter pill to swallow if they preferred the Altamont Pass route, it's hoped that the many potential commuter routes set up through Altamont to this main truncal line will change the debate from routing to funding.
As with the Expo Line, routing issues must be debated thoroughly, and after they are they must have a final decision (whether it pleases all parties or not). There are features of both Expo and this HSR for which I will have vigorous disagreements...but I support both of these projects as vital for the region and for our state's economy.
I hope you all will, too. Let's hope for a successful fall 2008 vote!
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jan 1, 2008 3:26:11 GMT -8
Honestly, I don't know what to think. It's great to be moving forward with a plan ... but is this the right plan ?? The Pacheco Pass alignment is less populated, and has way less support than the Altamont Pass allignment, which would have made more sense to more voters. Pacheco Pass seems to run straight through a wetlands wildlife refuge.
I myself was hoping for an Altamont Pass route so it can connect more communities and be a backbone for a future extension to Portland, Oregon.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jan 1, 2008 10:57:21 GMT -8
The argument the staffers made at the board meeting was that the Altamont routing would require trains to take 1 of 3 different routes in Union City (to SF, to Oakland, or to SJ). The Pacheco Pass routing involves a split in only two directions in San Jose (to SF or to Oakland).
The goal of the authority is to connect the major metropolitan regions of California. The Pacheco Pass alignment provides far better service to SF, Oakland, and especially San Jose.
Also, the new bridge or tunnel across the bay required for the Altamont option would add on billions of dollars in cost and the environmental impacts on the Bay's wetlands were considered too great.
Also, providing a single main trunk line for high-speed and commuter rail through the Altamont pass makes a lot of sense. Yet this mix of services would require four tracks through most of the pass, something the local cities were strongly opposed to. Now they get nothing, except for "conventional rail improvements to ACE in conjunction with but independent to the high-speed project."
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 1, 2008 18:45:00 GMT -8
Justin has stated it relatively well.
In short, HSR is meant for those with relatively few stops so that the speed and operations can be made easier, whereas Caltrain and Metrolink is meant to go faster than normal trains in dense urban settings but with more stops (and therefore less speed).
I think that the hybrid/combined Pacheco main trunk with the upgrading of local commuter rails to the East Bay and Sacramento is the best way to meet everyone's needs when it comes to efficiency and operations. Since most of the heat with regards to routing is over Pacheco/Altamont, I am hoping that something can be included for everyone and that the right bullet points can be made to make more voters vote "yes" when the time is right.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jan 2, 2008 8:18:06 GMT -8
I'm worried that next year, voters will see a blitz of TV smear ads against HSR. The opposition is huge.
"Waste of tax dollars", "NIMBY's unite to say NO", "California is for highways not HSR" ....
The Airlines, Auto and Oil interests are probably filming these ads as we speak. Maybe even the BRU will come out of the woodwork against "Transit Racism". Unfortunately the California voter is not the best educated, they swear by glitzy smear commercials. Which means we got our work cut out for us.
|
|
kenny
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by kenny on Apr 1, 2008 11:20:28 GMT -8
According to the CA HSR website and the news, the project will be up to the voters on the Nov 08 ballot. It is a $9 billion bond for the rail line and just under another $1 billion for connecting lines for a almost $10 billion bond. It says it needs a simple majority to pass.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 1, 2008 14:04:30 GMT -8
So can I assume that if this measure doesn't pass CA HSR is pretty much dead in the water?
If it passes does that mean construction will start sometime in the next few years?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 1, 2008 15:15:10 GMT -8
So can I assume that if this measure doesn't pass CA HSR is pretty much dead in the water? If it passes does that mean construction will start sometime in the next few years? It is too bad that this will finally be voted on when it appears that the economy will be in bad shape and the state in such a horrible financial crisis. It will be a great project and lets hope the people who are so anti-airport (which is almost everyone in SoCal) will really embrace it as an alternative. Who knows, even Palmdale might be a somewhat viable airport if it had a high speed rail as proposed. On another note, I wanted to get people's thoughts on today's ariticle in the LA Times regarding the global warming initiative in LA County that may result in a car tax or increased gas tax to fund $400M a year in mass transit locally. This is exactly what we need, and while I think the Global Warming issue is really a side issue in this regard, it may help it get by the voters. Reducing traffic through higher gas taxes and using the proceeds for increased Metrolink and Metrorail is the formula LA County needs. Sounds like a simple majority can pass it, although I think even this will be tough given that people think low car fees and low gas taxes are an American constitutional right. www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-taxes1apr01,1,7566510.story
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 1, 2008 16:07:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Apr 2, 2008 8:34:05 GMT -8
The California High-Speed Rail Authority Web Site has a nice video presentation of why HSR will be important, not only for the economy, but for a better quality of life with the development of livable communities. If more freeways are built, the cars will come and congest it again...HSR will bring more livable communities, and less sprawl. Above is a Portland community with its LRT system.Also, be sure to visit the HSR Media Archive. Pictures tend to present the idea front and center.
|
|
|
Post by jeffe77 on Apr 17, 2008 10:43:11 GMT -8
Legislature eyes 11th-hour changes to High-Speed Rail bondBy Anthony York (published Thursday, April 17, 2008) Capital Weekly - Sacramento, Ca Could this really be the year? In 2002, the legislature and Gov. Gray Davis placed a measure on the ballot that would provide $10 billion in state funds toward the development of a high-speed rail system. But after a few false starts, it looks like voters will actually get a chance to vote on the plan in November. The project has been met with opposition from environmentalists on the left and some on the right who want there to be a private investment component to the plan. Caught in the middle is the Legislature and the five-year old state budget crisis. Since 2004, the Legislature has exercised its right to shove the bond proposal off the ballot, in hopes of waiting for a rosier set of fiscal circumstances to increase the chances voters would open their wallets for the proposal. The budget picture hasn't gotten any rosier, but soaring gasoline prices and a governor concerned with his environmental legacy have provided new momentum for the bond. Secretary of State Debra Bowen has already certified the measure for the November ballot. But a bill by Assemblywoman Kathleen Galgiani, D-Tracy, would make some last-minute changes sought by both business groups and environmentalists, to the November ballot measure. The bill makes one major concession to environmentalists, explicitly stating that there will be no rail station in Los Banos. Environmental groups including the Sierra Club opposed the Los Banos station, saying it would damage protected grasslands in the Central Valley. Galgiani's changes would also make it easier for private investors to put money into the rail bonds. The drive to attract more private investment in the project has been pushed by Gov. Schwarzenegger and his appointees to the high-speed rail authority board -- Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle and gubernatorial special adviser and pal David Crane. The bill "would remove and conceivable legal obstacle to private investment," said Quentin Kopp, chairman of the High Speed Rail Authority board and a former chairman of the Senate Transportation Commission and a long-time advocate for high-speed rail. "Two weeks ago, we had a meeting that produced (dozens) of private investors" interested in purchasing high-speed rail bonds. Crane, who has taken the lead in forging public-private partnerships in the administration, said that was a big part of why he wanted to be on the commission in the first place. "That was a concern I had when I first came on the board. Their financing plan called for $10 billion from the private sector but the hadn't paved a route for that investment." The Galgiani bill would also provide opportunities and incentives for local officials line up regional funding for their segment of the rail project. The original bond mandated that the first segment to be built would be the San Francisco to Los Angeles route. If the Galgianis changes are accepted, locals could effectively compete with each other, and the authority would grant funding to the segments that were the most ready to go. "It's a way to introduce competition," said Galgiani. The first phase of the rail project is expected to cost $30 billion. Under the modified proposal, one-third of that money would come from the state, one-third from the federal government, and one-thrid from private investors. In his testimony on the Galgiani bill this week, Kopp indicated there has been an explosion of institutional investment funds, including CalPERS and STRS, dedicated to buying infrastructure bonds. Kopp said there was 37 such funds around the world, and some would be natural investors for the state's high-speed rail project. But big questions about the bond remain. First is whether state voters will be interested in investing in a high-speed rail plan as the state faces an enormous budget deficit. The plan itself faces some continued opposition from environmental groups, which could complicate any bond campaign. Another question is whether the federal money for the program will ever materialize. A delegation of state high-speed rail board members recently went back to Washington D.C. seeking an answer to that very question. And the answers, according to Crane, were encouraging. State officials say they have received indications from members of Congress that there will be roughly $60 billion set aside for high-speed rail projects nationwide in next year's federal transportation bill. And they are further encouraged that California, which is further along than any other state in its high-speed rail development, is well positioned to capture some of that money. But, said Crane, "it will require a strongly unified and aggressive California Congressional Delegation" to capture some of those funds for the state high-speed rail program. The changes in the Galgiani bill are seen as pivotal to attracting Gov. Schwarzenegger's support for the November bond. Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Sabrina Lockhart said the administration has not taken a formal position on the bond, but is working closely with the High Speed Rail Authority, which is sponsoring the Galgiani bill. Meanwhile, some environmental opposition remains. The Sierra Club's Tim Frank said that while his group is encouraged by the decision not to build a rail station in those protected grasslands between Gilroy and Merced, his group still has concerns with the project. "High-speed rail will be growth-inducing in the Central Valley," said Frank. "The question is, will it be good growth or bad growth?" Frank said he wants to give the High-Speed Rail Authority some say over land use decisions as the Central Valley continues to grow. "Now is the time when we have some leverage," Frank said.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 17, 2008 11:28:49 GMT -8
In my opinion, the merger of the airlines will add fuel to the fire to get the high speed rail built. Less competition means higher prices and reduced service. We need high speed rail for people as well freight.
|
|
|
Post by jeffe77 on May 5, 2008 9:26:35 GMT -8
theaggie.org/article/538High speed rail bond measure scheduled for November ballotBill in Assembly would allow private investment, expected to help bond pass Written by ALYSOUN BONDE Published April 29, 2008Californians will likely be able to vote on a $10 billion bond measure to build a high speed rail line stretching from Northern California to San Diego in November. The state legislature has removed the bond from the ballot on two previous occasions, but proponents are optimistic that a bill currently in committee will increase the measure's chances of staying on the ballot. Assembly Bill 3034 - scheduled to be heard in Appropriations on May 7 - amends and updates some of the language in the original 2002 bond measure to address some concerns of Governor Schwarzenegger as well as those of environmental and business groups. The high speed rail line is expected to cost $40 billion when its 800 miles of construction are complete. AB 3034 would make it possible for private investors to buy into the project - something the governor has been strongly advocating. "Because the high speed train will make a profit out of operation, there is room for private companies to invest and get paid back through fare revenues," said Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the California High Speed Rail Authority. Should AB 3034 be passed, the subsequent financing plan would allow one-third of the cost to be funded by private investment. Another third would come from California taxpayers, while the remaining third would be supplied by federal matching funds, Morshed said. The bill also recognizes a major concern of the Sierra Club about possible damage to protected Central Valley grasslands in Los Banos. AB 3034 specifically states that there will not be a station built in the Los Banos area. The original bond required the San Francisco to Los Angeles segment to be built before any other, but Galgiani's bill would allow the High Speed Rail Authority to grant funds to whichever segment is the most prepared. This is intended to encourage local authorities to compete for regional funding. It requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature to remove the bond measure from the ballot - an action the legislature chose to take in 2004 and 2006. "There were other high priority needs [the legislature] wanted to ask for the voters' approval on," Morshed said. But now with gas prices on the rise and concerns about global warming abounding throughout the state, it's looking like Californians will finally get to vote on the project that has been in the works since the early 1990s. The proposed system would extend from San Francisco, Oakland and Sacramento, run through the Central Valley and Los Angeles and end in San Diego. The high speed "bullet" train operates at speeds up to 220 mph, making the express travel time from San Francisco to Los Angeles less than two-and-a-half hours. If approved, the groundbreaking project is expected to be completed by 2020. Advocates stress the importance of the train as an alternative to driving or flying. California's rapidly increasing population will boostthe demand for travel within the state beyond the capacity of highways and airports. "We're running out of space for airports and roads to handle the increased demand for travel and so we have to resort to other means," Morshed said. "High speed rail is great way of meeting the demand." In addition to meeting in-state travel needs, the electric train is seen by many as a critical step toward combating global warming. "[High speed rail] will be an essential part to reducing carbon dioxide emissions," said Ryan Loney, a sophomore UC Davis student organizing an informational forum about the project on campus. "It'll cut down on flights between Northern and Southern California, which have a huge carbon footprint on our state." Loney has noticed an enormous interest in high speed rail from California college students. Many have gotten involved online though blogs and facebook.com, he said. The Facebook group dedicated to the project has over 23,000 members. "I think [college students] are more excited about this than anybody else because we're concerned about our future, the environment, the state's economy and how it's going to be sustainable," Loney said. "We're the ones that will have to live with the consequences of the decisions made." Loney and the California Student Sustainability Coalition will be hosting a forum on high speed rail Wednesday at 7 p.m. in 1001 Geidt. There will be speakers from the High Speed Rail Authority and UC Davis' Department of Environmental Policy, as well as an informal question-and-answer session. ALYSOUN BONDE can be reached at city@californiaaggie.com
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 12, 2008 16:25:10 GMT -8
So we're just kind of twiddling our thumbs waiting for November to see if this thing is going to pass.
One thing I noticed on official route maps is that there is now an optional proposed station between Bakersfield and Fresno called Visalia/Tulare/Hanford. Was that always there? I don't remember it.
Amtrak serves this area on the San Joaquins I believe. I'm not familiar with the area but a friend tells me that there's really nothing there. Why did this stop appear on the route?
One of my fears about CA HSR was that every politician and their mother would want a stop in their district or else they would try to kill the project. Of course, a bullet train relies on fewer stops to maintain top speed for a longer amount of time.
So does anyone have any info on this optional stop and whether it's a good idea or not?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 12, 2008 20:00:33 GMT -8
A stop in Visalia/Tulare/Hanford was proposed in the first round of studies but was eliminated in the Statewide EIR/EIS. Then local politicans started complaining and now its back on the table as an optional station.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 25, 2008 9:16:25 GMT -8
So we're just kind of twiddling our thumbs waiting for November to see if this thing is going to pass. One thing I noticed on official route maps is that there is now an optional proposed station between Bakersfield and Fresno called Visalia/Tulare/Hanford. Was that always there? I don't remember it. Amtrak serves this area on the San Joaquins I believe. I'm not familiar with the area but a friend tells me that there's really nothing there. Why did this stop appear on the route? One of my fears about CA HSR was that every politician and their mother would want a stop in their district or else they would try to kill the project. Of course, a bullet train relies on fewer stops to maintain top speed for a longer amount of time. So does anyone have any info on this optional stop and whether it's a good idea or not? heh heh heh.... I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's NOTHING out there; after all, I accepted a job in Visalia a couple of years ago and like some sort of missionary, I've made it my single-handed goal to convince the local officials that if they are serious about high-speed rail, they had better start taking conventional transit more seriously: you know, buses, maybe even a commuter train or light rail (which they are considering). as for a high-speed rail station, it's not necessarily a bad idea. after all, as the Times-Delta is fond of reminding local readers, the Valley is one of California's fastest-growing regions, and Visalia is the closest town of any reasonable size to Sequoia National Park, making it a potential tourist destination. the trouble with Amtrak's San Joaquin is that it covers the wrong side of the Valley. the Santa Fe is much friendlier to passenger trains than the Union Pacific, but the Union Pacific has a much larger population, and much higher potential ridership. basically, the San Joaquin roughly follows Hwy. 43, with stops in Wasco (home to flowers, but not much else) and Corcoran (home to the prison) before stopping in Hanford (a nice town, but not much to write home about) and Fresno (large and growing like a weed). the UP route follows Hwy. 99, a much more busier and more crowded route... what I would expect from a Visalia/ Tulare station is that maybe every third train would stop there, and the rest would zoom through on the third track, same as they do with limited express trains in Japan.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 31, 2008 12:08:48 GMT -8
May 30, 2008 03:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time California State Assembly Approves California High-Speed Rail Legislation
SACRAMENTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The California State Assembly last night approved AB 3034 (Gagliani/Ma) by a vote of 60-3. The legislation improves existing California High Speed Train Bond Act by strengthening provisions for financial controls, environmental findings and construction implementation.
The technical amendments in AB 3034 clarify construction and financing requirements for the $9.95 billion dollar bond measure, which will be on the November 2008 statewide ballot. The bill also prioritizes construction segments based on financial readiness and ability to leverage local, federal, and private funds.
Prior to passage on the Assembly floor, two Assembly committees, Assembly Transportation and Assembly Appropriations approved the measure without any negative votes.
Judge Quentin Kopp, Chairman of the California High-Speed Authority commented, "The strong vote on the Assembly floor reflects increasing vitality and enthusiasm for high-speed rail in California. Despite past vicissitudes, the Assembly's overwhelming vote demonstrates California's purposeful progress in providing 200 mile per hour train service from southern California through the Central Valley to the Bay Area and Sacramento."
AB 3034 will now move to the California State Senate for approval.
|
|
|
Post by jeffe77 on Jun 5, 2008 7:53:08 GMT -8
www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet5-2008jun05,0,7414713.storyUnion Pacific blocks Los Angeles to San Francisco bullet train Rail line officials won't yield its right of way, citing safety and operational concerns with a high-speed line close to freight trains.By Eric Bailey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 8:43 PM PDT, June 4, 2008SACRAMENTO -- -- At a time of skyrocketing gas costs, soaring airline fares and global-warming fears, the timing would seem perfect for a statewide vote on a 200-mph bullet train. But five months before voters decide whether to approve bonds for the high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco, the $30-billion project has hit a new obstacle. Interactive look at high-speed train systemAn old-guard railroad is declining to share its right-of-way. Officials at Union Pacific railroad recently told the California High Speed Rail Authority that they have safety and operational concerns about running a bullet train close to lumbering freight trains. "Just look at what happened in L.A. a few years ago," said Scott Moore, a Union Pacific vice president, citing the 2005 crash of a Metrolink passenger train that killed 11 and hampered rail operations. "Those accidents happen." High-speed rail promoters say the freight hauler's hard-line stand may simply be a bargaining ploy, and could be overcome in any case by buying adjacent land. "Some are saying 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling,' but it is not," said Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the rail authority. A prominent environmental group and several railroad advocacy organizations, however, contend that Union Pacific's refusal will prove a formidable challenge to the project at a key moment. California voters will be asked in November to approve nearly $10 billion in bonds to help finance construction. Stuart Flashman, an attorney representing those groups, said a shift away from running the bullet train in Union Pacific's right of way would require a new environmental analysis for affected sections of the route -- a process that could add time and dollars. "Just the fact there's a delay will shoot the prices up again," he said. "This makes infeasible major portions of the high-speed route." The bullet train line is designed to run alongside Union Pacific tracks for many miles in Southern California, the Central Valley and the Bay Area. Flashman said the biggest problems could be on the leg from the Central Valley across the Pacheco Pass to San Jose, and on the route from Bakersfield through Palmdale into Los Angeles. "It's hard to back up and simply say: 'You can't use that,' " said Flashman, who represents the Planning and Conservation League, the California Rail Foundation and the Transportation Legal Defense and Education Fund. Flashman said the organizations he represents support the high-speed rail line but also want safety concerns more fully addressed. Freight-car derailments occur "fairly often," he said. "You can imagine if you have a high-speed train zooming through there and it hits one of those freight cars. It's not a pretty picture." Critics question why the California High Speed Rail Authority didn't negotiate a deal long ago with Union Pacific. Until a meeting last month, high-speed rail officials had not held formal discussions with Union Pacific in "a couple of years," said Moore of Union Pacific. "There's been no circumstance where we've indicated we felt this might be workable." Morshed of the high-speed rail authority, however, insisted the process of planning and constructing what would be among the biggest public works projects in California history -- and the first high-speed rail line in the U.S. -- could overcome the obstacles. He said miles of the high-speed route in some urban areas have already been purchased by the state to accommodate existing commuter trains. Along swaths under Union Pacific control, adjacent land held by private property owners could be purchased for tracks, he said. But it isn't so easy, said Dan McNamara of the California Rail Foundation. In some areas, scores of houses would have to be uprooted, and the train would zoom past existing neighborhoods, he said. "I think they're remiss to say this isn't a problem that needs to be addressed." McNamara said he believes the bond vote, already canceled by the Legislature on two previous occasions, should be delayed once again, and the planning should be put under the aegis of the Department of Transportation, "where there's some checks and balances." "This is not ready for prime time," he said. "It needs to be done right." Morshed, however, said the project was ready to go. A bigger worry, he said, could be the rising cost of raw materials such as steel and concrete. Aside from miles of new steel rails, the project would feature 650 steel and concrete highway bridges, which account for up to 40% of the entire project cost, Morshed said. If voters approve the November ballot measure, project backers hope to get another $10 billion in financing from the federal government and an equal amount from private investors. Construction then could start in two to three years, and the first high-speed trains might be rolling within a decade, Morshed said. In areas where the bullet train would run near freight trains, a stout barrier would separate the two sets of tracks, he said, adding that during decades of high-speed rail operations in France and Japan there have been no fatalities. "We don't want to sacrifice the safety of our passengers any more than the railroad wants to sacrifice its freight," Morshed said. "We have much more valuable cargo." eric.bailey@latimes.com
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 5, 2008 8:15:38 GMT -8
In the maps I've seen, I don't see a Las Vegas to Los Angeles or Anaheim route.
I know it would increase costs, but wouldn't it also increase support? Or, I guess because of its bi-state nature, it needs to be considered a different project.
Wouldn't a Las Vegas / Southern California HSR line actually help to win support for this project?
Just ruminating.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jun 5, 2008 9:00:47 GMT -8
Union Pacific blocks Los Angeles to San Francisco bullet train [/size][/center] Rail line officials won't yield its right of way, citing safety and operational concerns with a high-speed line close to freight trains. [/size][/center] Here is a comment that Mike McGinley, the former chief engineer of Metrolink and a former Southern Pacific veteran had to say on this opening salvo about value of the ROW:
The UP position is pro-forma, that is about what anyone who observes this company would expect. It is an opening position. CAHSRA, Caltrans, PG&E, or any other public utility has ways to work out issues of right of way. It is reasonable, in my opinion, that the UP right of way would not be encumbered from their future use and development. To this end any other use of the RW or adjacent RW will have to preserve freight access to lineside industry and to preserve space for additional freight tracks and maintenance roadways. Beyond that, money talks.
The UP, like all RRs, is rightly concerned about liability exposure. Their net worth could be wiped out by an accident involving HSR casualties, whether they were at fault or not, due to their deep pockets. Again they should be left in a position no worse than they are now, the HSR system should shield them from liability (except for intentional harm) under the "but for" concept: They would not have that risk but for the fact that HSR is adjacent to their operations. In my opinion the whole matter of common carrier liability has to be addressed by Congress and capped. This is an anathema to the legal profession but it may be the price of ever getting expansion of public transport in this country.
As to Palmdale to Los Angeles, the UP does not own that any more, it was sold to the LACMTA for use by Metrolink. The UP has freight rights only. Between Palmdale and Lancaster the right of way is split, 40 feet owned by MTA and 60 feet owned by UP. North of Lancaster it is all UP.
One thing to know about most of this right of way: it is Congressional Land Grant property, given to the Southern Pacific for building the southern transcontinental route. It would be interesting to know from a legal perspective if there is some presumption of public utility (e.g. passenger service) obligation in the conveyance (in about 1875). After the land grant and initial construction some short segments were relocated, so it is not all land grant. And I am not sure at what point the the San Joaquin Valley the grant started, it may be as far south as Fresno. And land grants were only of Federal lands, if the SP was built over land already in private ownership they had to buy that right of way from the owner, this was the case in most developed towns and homesteaded agricultural lands.
**************** Questions to ask the LA Times: Who is Dan McNamara? What is CA Rail Foundation? These guys are the EXPO NIMBY's on the statewide level.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jun 5, 2008 10:49:43 GMT -8
In the maps I've seen, I don't see a Las Vegas to Los Angeles or Anaheim route. I know it would increase costs, but wouldn't it also increase support? Or, I guess because of its bi-state nature, it needs to be considered a different project. Wouldn't a Las Vegas / Southern California HSR line actually help to win support for this project? Just ruminating. CA High Speed Rail has a backbone route from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Period. There is another piece from Anaheim to Los Angeles and some future routing to connect Sacramento. That is it. And that is what we get to vote in November. Your suggestion is being addressed by the group working to build a high speed train from Vegas to the High Desert near Victorville.
|
|