joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Jun 5, 2008 12:08:30 GMT -8
I love how the official maps work: people can see the real cost and time benefits. For 50 bucks you can ride from LA to SJ in just over 2 hours!
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jun 5, 2008 14:27:25 GMT -8
I love how the official maps work: people can see the real cost and time benefits. For 50 bucks you can ride from LA to SJ in just over 2 hours! I'm a big supporter of a high speed rail line but I won't believe that fare until I see it. I believe HSR can work here just like in other countries. But it'll be expensive here, just like other countries.
|
|
|
Post by jeffe77 on Jun 12, 2008 8:07:09 GMT -8
www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=42416House bill boosts California rail plansWASHINGTON -- The House on Wednesday boosted California's prospects for a high-speed passenger rail system that eventually could serve the San Joaquin Valley, the Fresno Bee reports. Expensive and ambitious, California's high-speed rail program is still in its infancy. But as part of a rail transportation bill with wide bipartisan appeal, the House included a $1.75 billion grant program designed to help high-speed rail get rolling nationwide. "This measure will give a big shot in the arm to assist California," said Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, adding that high-speed rail "will be a state-of-the-art system we will depend on." The House bill provides $350 million annually for high-speed rail projects through the year 2013. States and groups of states could apply for grants to build rail corridors served by trains that travel at least 110 mph. The funding inevitably will attract stiff competition, and the bill does not specifically cite California as a guaranteed recipient. The Transportation Department must select projects that "generate national economic benefits" and "reduce congestion," among other criteria. The bill further requires "stable and dependable" funding from nonfederal sources. In November, Californians will vote on a $9.95 billion bond measure that would help build the high-speed system connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco via the San Joaquin Valley. The state still will require federal funding for one-third of the total project cost, according to the California High Speed Rail Authority. "This is sorely needed," Costa said. California rail officials have estimated they might need upward of $40 billion to complete the planned high-speed rail project. Skeptics suggest the costs inevitably will rise even higher on a project whose benefits may be elusive. "High-speed rail in California is a very difficult proposition, because you have to go through and around the mountains," David Levinson, an assistant professor of transportation engineering at the University of Minnesota, noted in an interview. Levinson, who has studied the California high-speed proposals, added that "even if they got approval this year, it will still take years and years to build." He suggested high-speed rail might make more sense in a congested region like the Northeast. But Quentin Kopp, chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said in an interview that the House action was a "financial recognition" of the imminence of high-speed rail development. "It certainly advances the California high-speed rail project," Kopp said. "It's a sign to voters in California of the [congressional] commitment to high-speed rail, and it contains at least the beginning of available funds." Kopp's ally Costa is one of the House's most vocal proponents of super-fast trains. He has traveled to Japan to research the trains and has introduced several bills this Congress to encourage high-speed rail. His legislation specified California as a beneficiary, unlike the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act approved by the House on Wednesday. The House bill, approved 311-104, cites the Northeast corridor as one for which the Transportation Department might consider high-speed proposals, but the legislation adds that other projects might be considered as well. It's not clear how much money any one corridor might receive. "This is not just limited to Washington and New York," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. "It's open to the entire nation." The bill further specifies that only regions designated by the Federal Railroad Administration as a high-speed corridor may be eligible for funding. California's is one of 11 such corridors currently recognized, with state and federal officials anticipating trains eventually zipping along at up to 220 mph. Potential stops include Fresno, Bakersfield and an unspecified location in the Visalia area. The Senate last year approved a similar rail bill, which covers Amtrak and a host of related rail issues. The House and Senate must now reconcile their differences. A separate House bill still awaiting action would authorize high-speed rail bonds. "People would beg, would beg, to get on that train at 120 mph and get their business done," said Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio. (This item appeared June 12, 2008, in the Fresno Bee.) June 12, 2008
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 24, 2008 11:58:49 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. [/quote] after catching up with kcrw podcasts i came across the episode from june 18th 2008 talking about the california high speed rail. during the show Quentin Kopp, Chairman of the California High Speed Rail Authority Board, explains how the CHSR authority knew full on that up would not let them share the tracks. he noted that the EIR specifically did not mention sharing the tracks due to UPs stance. He also mentions that the story / letter was most likly leaked be someone opposing the CHSR in hopes of minimizing support for a line that has no route. listen here if you care: www.kcrw.com/news/programs/ww/ww080618high_gasoline_prices
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 24, 2008 12:09:01 GMT -8
Well isn't that great, so don't they have a plan to mitigate that since they had known well in advance?
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 11, 2008 19:46:19 GMT -8
NC Times - REGION: Governor's vow could derail high-speed rail
By DAVE DOWNEY - NC Times Staff Writer
The state budget stalemate could derail legislation that would ensure San Diego and Riverside counties get a crack at a portion of the $9 billion set aside for a high-speed rail line in a November ballot measure.
After several delays going back six years, the bond that was intended to jump-start construction of the 800-mile network finally is set to go to voters in November in the form of Proposition 1.
The plan is to connect California's major urban regions with speedy trains traveling as fast as 200 mph. Between Los Angeles and San Diego, the tracks are proposed to run through Riverside, Murrieta and Escondido along Interstates 215 and 15.
However, as written, the proposition would focus spending on tracks between Los Angeles and San Francisco ---- a piece some have called the backbone of the eventual statewide system. That focus bothered politicians in communities south of Los Angeles and east of San Francisco.
With their support, Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston, introduced Assembly Bill 3034 to spread the money around the state.
The bill passed out of the Senate on Thursday and is expected to easily clear the Assembly on Monday.
But with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's vow this week not to sign any bills until the Legislature sends him a budget, the legislation now appears doomed.
"The governor said he will not sign any bill until we have a budget. And he also said that means that some good bills won't be signed," said Aaron McLear, the governor's press secretary, in a telephone interview Friday. "This will be one of those bills."
California is the only state with a fiscal year beginning July 1 that remains without a spending plan.
Lawmakers failed to meet their constitutionally mandated June 15 deadline to pass a budget.
Gary Gallegos, executive director of the San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego County's regional transportation agency, said the governor would be making a mistake in refusing to sign the legislation, one that could set back an already delayed project for many more years.
"It would be sad if he didn't sign this because it is going to go on the ballot anyway," Gallegos said. "And if it goes on the ballot as it is, there may not be much reason for people in places like San Diego to vote for the measure. If it is just for L.A. to San Francisco, why would a San Diegan vote for it?"
The measure hasn't been polling well as it is. According to a recent Field Poll, just 56 percent of likely California voters planned to vote for it.
Temecula Mayor Mike Naggar expressed similar concerns.
"Unless we can ensure that a certain amount of money will be coming to Southern California, you know what, it can be delayed as far as I'm concerned," Naggar said.
Naggar noted that Southern California perennially is one of the nation's fastest-growing regions and Riverside County has been the state's fastest-growing county for several years in a row.
"Let's be honest, the need is down in Southern California," he said. "So you've got to ask yourself, 'Why is the money going up there when the need is down here?' I'm not saying don't fund anything to the north. But the idea that we might only get a few crumbs from the table doesn't make any sense."
Galgiani, however, clung to hope that the governor would make an exception in this case.
"This is a proposition that is subject to different deadlines than legislative bills," Galgiani said. "Bills can be put on hold. This can't ---- because what is at risk is confusing the voters."
According to Secretary of State Debra Bowen, 5 p.m. Monday is the deadline for signing legislation that changes measures already on the ballot, such as the rail bond.
If that deadline passes, there would be a fallback position: Galgiani still could get a new measure on the ballot. But instead of taking the place of Prop. 1, it would compete with the existing bond measure. And Galgiani said she doesn't like the prospect of having dueling measures on the ballot that confuse voters.
If it gets to that point, she said, "I may just pull the bill altogether."
Besides angling for their fair share, regional transportation officials have been stressing that money should be spread throughout the state to ease congestion in the fastest-growing commuting corridors, including I-15 between Temecula and San Diego, and to anchor the state's bid to lead the world in reversing climate change. Transportation is the source of 40 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists blame for the warming planet.
The ballot measure would issue $9.95 billion in bonds ---- $9 billion for the high-speed rail system and $950 million for improvements to existing regional train lines, such as the one along the North County coast.
The $9 billion is only a fraction of the $45 billion state officials say is needed to build the fast train system. Galgiani said federal and private funding would be sought to fill the gap.
Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney@nctimes.com.
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Aug 12, 2008 13:45:15 GMT -8
NC Times - REGION: Governor's vow could derail high-speed rail
By DAVE DOWNEY - NC Times Staff Writer
(article truncated)
"It would be sad if he didn't sign this because it is going to go on the ballot anyway," Gallegos said. "And if it goes on the ballot as it is, there may not be much reason for people in places like San Diego to vote for the measure. If it is just for L.A. to San Francisco, why would a San Diegan vote for it?"
(article truncated)
Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney@nctimes.com. Maybe because it will eventually go to SD? Ever think of that? I love the selfish attitudes of some people: if I cant have it, no one can.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 12, 2008 17:42:55 GMT -8
Voting is intended to be somewhat selfish. You vote for what's good for you and after everyone votes you see where you are. That doesn't mean that you ignore everyone else and you still have to consider the greater good, but that's largely how it works.
|
|
|
Post by wrcousert on Aug 13, 2008 15:15:39 GMT -8
I love how the official maps work: people can see the real cost and time benefits. For 50 bucks you can ride from LA to SJ in just over 2 hours! What about local trips, say from Anaheim to Downtown L.A.? Do you know if they'll have weekly or monthly passes?
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 15, 2008 10:51:46 GMT -8
What about local trips, say from Anaheim to Downtown L.A.? Do you know if they'll have weekly or monthly passes? According to the official route map a ride from Anaheim to Downtown LA will cost $9 one-way (in 2005 dollars) and take 20 minutes. Right now a Metrolink one-way ticket costs $7.50 ($5.75 weekend) and takes roughly 45-50 minutes. An Amtrak one-way ticket costs $10-11 ($15 when almost sold out) and takes roughly 40 minutes. There are no details yet on what kind of passes they might offer.
|
|
|
Post by wrcousert on Aug 15, 2008 11:33:32 GMT -8
According to the official route map a ride from Anaheim to Downtown LA will cost $9 one-way (in 2005 dollars) and take 20 minutes. Right now a Metrolink one-way ticket costs $7.50 ($5.75 weekend) and takes roughly 45-50 minutes. An Amtrak one-way ticket costs $10-11 ($15 when almost sold out) and takes roughly 40 minutes. There are no details yet on what kind of passes they might offer. Interesting. CaHSR will supposedly operate at 220 MPH. Isn't Metrolinks top speed less than 60 MPH? You'd think CaHSR would be able to complete the trip in less than 20 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 15, 2008 12:48:17 GMT -8
60 seems awfully low, i know for a fact the san bernardino line goes at least at 80+
one glorious day we were pacing each other down the el monte busway
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Aug 15, 2008 13:14:36 GMT -8
Interesting. CaHSR will supposedly operate at 220 MPH. Isn't Metrolinks top speed less than 60 MPH? You'd think CaHSR would be able to complete the trip in less than 20 minutes. 2 things. First of all, Metrolink can go faster than 60, but it usually doesn't. The advantage that it will have over CAHSR is its acceleration. Commuter rail can accelerate much better than HSR can. Second, although HSR can reach 220 mph, don't expect it to do that for the local trips. It will be going quickly, but nowhere near 220 mph. All that said, 20 minutes is very impressive and $9 will not be a bad price for that trip.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 15, 2008 14:24:59 GMT -8
CA HSR will *probably* hit 100-150 MPH in urban areas such as Anaheim-LA.
It won't be blowing through La Mirada at 220, that's for sure.
The top speed for Metrolink between Anaheim-LA is 79 MPH and it hits that speed very often. The Orange County Line has the highest average speed of any Metrolink route at 44 MPH, probably because of the 90 MPH zone through Oceanside.
Average system speed is 41 MPH. SB line is 39 MPH. Riverside 42. Antelope Valley 41. Ventura County 42. IE-OC 39. 91 Line 39.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Aug 15, 2008 17:22:17 GMT -8
This map shows the maximum speeds that would be allowed on the system. (Disregard the Altamont segment.) Because the high-speed trains will be confined exclusively to the LOSSAN corridor between LA and Irvine with no new right-of-way, the high-speed trains will encounter all the curves that Metrolink and Amtrak trains encounter today. Amtrak and Metrolink trains will share the tracks and passing tracks would be provided for the high-speed trains at intermediate stations.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 15, 2008 18:59:14 GMT -8
stupid palmdale to bakersfeild sub 200 running. its all desert!
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Aug 15, 2008 19:07:28 GMT -8
This map shows the maximum speeds that would be allowed on the system. (Disregard the Altamont segment.) Because the high-speed trains will be confined exclusively to the LOSSAN corridor between LA and Irvine with no new right-of-way, the high-speed trains will encounter all the curves that Metrolink and Amtrak trains encounter today. Amtrak and Metrolink trains will share the tracks and passing tracks would be provided for the high-speed trains at intermediate stations. Why can't the train go over 200mph from palmdale to Bakersfield?
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 15, 2008 19:35:19 GMT -8
I would assume steep grades. You're going through Tehachapi after all.
Where did that map come from anyway? I thought details like that were far off.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Aug 15, 2008 20:15:13 GMT -8
That exact map is from the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/EIS. An earlier version was also released before the CA-14/CA-58 Tehachapi crossing was selected over the I-5 route.
|
|
|
Post by wrcousert on Aug 16, 2008 10:18:55 GMT -8
This map shows the maximum speeds that would be allowed on the system. (Disregard the Altamont segment.) Because the high-speed trains will be confined exclusively to the LOSSAN corridor between LA and Irvine with no new right-of-way, the high-speed trains will encounter all the curves that Metrolink and Amtrak trains encounter today. Amtrak and Metrolink trains will share the tracks and passing tracks would be provided for the high-speed trains at intermediate stations. Why can't the train go over 200mph from palmdale to Bakersfield? I wasn't aware CaHSR would share track with Metrolink and Amtrak. Seems silly. CaHSR should have it's own dedicated "curve free" track.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 16, 2008 10:46:13 GMT -8
and place it where?
|
|
|
Post by wrcousert on Aug 16, 2008 10:48:35 GMT -8
I would elevate it, mostly over freeways. I know... can't be done.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 17, 2008 9:50:58 GMT -8
it could be done... just need more of that precious money
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 2, 2008 11:21:01 GMT -8
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Oct 6, 2008 21:54:40 GMT -8
Wait, why did it change from Prop 1 to Prop 1A?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 7, 2008 5:22:54 GMT -8
Wait, why did it change from Prop 1 to Prop 1A? must be a type-o. i have already received my california general election book, its listed at prop 1
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Oct 7, 2008 6:39:06 GMT -8
Wait, why did it change from Prop 1 to Prop 1A? must be a type-o. i have already received my California general election book, its listed at prop 1 Here is what happened: Prop. 1 was replaced by Prop. 1a, when AB-3034 was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. Due to the late deadlines from the legislature and the governor, the Secretary of State had to send the ballot information off to the counties for printing, as the ballots must be sent to troops around the world with a far in advance deadline. So, you received a ballot package with Prop. 1 correctly featured by that deadline. Soon, you will get a supplemental ballot package with information about Prop. 1a. When you get your ballot, it will only have Prop. 1a on it, but you learn about High Speed Rail twice from the materials sent. When I recorded the Pro position for the LA CityView Program (click on-->) Roundtable #48, you can see where I mention 1a, as the bill was still in process of adoption when the program was recorded. Also, see the new TTC Campaign web page on Prop. 1a.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 7, 2008 9:56:43 GMT -8
When I recorded the Pro position for the LA CityView Program (click on-->) Roundtable #48, you can see where I mention 1a, as the bill was still in process of adoption when the program was recorded. yargh!! missing plugin, guess i wont be listening to that at work...
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 4, 2008 21:04:03 GMT -8
Prop 1A isn't doing so good right now ... 52% No 48% Yes with 10% reporting.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Nov 4, 2008 21:16:47 GMT -8
*sigh*
|
|