|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 8, 2010 12:31:11 GMT -8
LAofAnaheim, unfortunately it's not so simple. The bond authorization in AB3034 requires that the express service be faster than 2 hours 40 minutes. 4.5 hours is actually illegal, unless there is a (perhaps very infrequent) express service that takes less than 2:40. It was in the text that voters approved in Proposition 1A in 2008, and would basically require another vote to change. That's not good. We're going to get stuck with a lemon. I can see people getting riled up about costs...even from the transit advocate side. I wonder if European countries put in restrictions in their votes like this. Some sort of reasonableness has to happen for all transit projects. There's existing tracks in some areas...use 'em. Build new ones. But don't start over.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 8, 2010 12:47:09 GMT -8
I think it should be possible to reuse some track, especially if it is something that we can run some express service rarely to meet that technical requirement. The requirement is essentially there so that the California High Speed Rail Authority wouldn't be able to spend tens of billions of dollars and in the end only deliver marginal improvements over current Amtrak service. I think there needs to be some kind of technical constraint of that sort so we avoid the slippery slope of marginal improvement when voters were sold on a giant leap forward. The result of not having these kinds of constraints is Acela, which certainly serves a function, but doesn't reach its full potential of effectively eliminating short-haul air service in the northeast corridor. In short, the constraint is there to ensure we don't end up with a lemon.
|
|
jass
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by jass on Nov 8, 2010 15:20:57 GMT -8
False. Since the 1990s, Amtrak California has planned on using the HSR tracks as soon as theyre available, and before the new faster trainsets are in town. Even an upgrade from 79mph to 110mph between Bakersfield and Fresno will be much appreciated. There are so called independent utility clauses in AB3034 requiring that any segment that gets built be useful in and of itself. The plan for the Central Valley tracks is that they be used by conventional passenger rail in the meantime. This can theoretically take place even before catenary wiring is completed as Amtrak would be running diesel trains. In theory it should be possible to go much faster than 110mph, but I'm not sure what the limitations of the trains are, and what the FRA has to say about that (maybe not much as there will be no freight on that line). The locomotives have a max speed listed of 110. Perhaps they can hit 115 or something if pushed all the way, and free of FRA rules. I dont know. But I look forward to my San Joaquin train hitting 110 in the next 5 years. It's already nice looking out the window at 79mph and passing cars going at 65-70.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 8, 2010 17:41:06 GMT -8
Yes, a central valley segment wouldn't just create the backbone of the future system, and a test track for the new trains, it would also result in immediate improvements in passenger rail. It currently takes 6 hours from Bakersfield to Oakland with Amtrak, and there isn't even passenger connectivity between Palmdale and Bakersfield, so these improvements will make a big difference already. Of course, once they get 220 mph trains running, that's when things will really be competitive with all other modes, and we can expect a surge in train ridership across systems.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 9, 2010 13:13:32 GMT -8
I am not saying these people are right: I am saying there are other ways to neutralize NIMBYs than picking a fight with them. If 95 MPH is more acceptable to people than 125 MPH, then maybe it's a good first step. As a forumer mentioned, speed isn't what concerns NIMBYs, but aesthetics...especially in areas like SF Peninsula and Orange County. The reason why we don't want to go down the path of appeasement is because once they see they have the upper hand, NIMBYs will simply ask for more unneeded adjustments, just like what happened on local levels such as the Expo Line. When this happens, the costs REALLY go through the roof, and the approval and construction processes take even longer. As it is, we're already planning on building stations in locations where their use and need is questionable, like Norwalk, Sylmar, and City of Industry. Also, if we were to allow track sharing in the urban areas, it might cause much more of the route to be at-grade. Then you REALLY have problems, because it that sets off the classic "they're murdering innocent people - or worse, children" rants. Isn't the Pacific Surfliner route the 2nd busiest Amtrak corridor? Actually it's the 3rd busiest. An extra hour or two is quite a bit of time. 5 hours definitely wouldn't kill the project, but I just think you could attract a WHOLE lot more ridership (and thus, $$$) by doing the faster option. Are you actually bowing down to these NIMBYS, many of which simply don't want HSR in any shape or form? Why can't we lecture them (whether at community meetings or in court) with the fact that HSR is done all around the world and that they have nothing to fear?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 9, 2010 13:40:09 GMT -8
The reason why we don't want to go down the path of appeasement is because once they see they have the upper hand, NIMBYs will simply ask for more unneeded adjustments, just like what happened on local levels such as the Expo Line. When this happens, the costs REALLY go through the roof, and the approval and construction processes take even longer. Are you actually bowing down to these NIMBYS, many of which simply don't want HSR in any shape or form? Why can't we lecture them (whether at community meetings or in court) with the fact that HSR is done all around the world and that they have nothing to fear? This is not a war, jdrcrasher. Very often, what you call NIMBY is simply somebody sticking up for his neighborhood and his property values. This is not a dictatorship where we can simply tell people we are going to destroy a neighborhood "for the greater good", as in the case of Haussmann in Paris, Robert Moses in New York, the CRA with Bunker Hill or CalTrans with the Century Freeway. We now have laws that ensure that the public can object if they have a reasonable objection. Objections to trains are not always unreasonable. Imagine if you owned a house and somebody decided to put a high-speed train next to it, with no noise mitigations, and you had no way of objecting to it. The nearest station might be ten miles away, making it useless for you to use. You'd be pretty pissed, I'm sure. There are many times when the NIMBYs are being unreasonable. But be very careful about lumping them all into one bin and saying their all crazy, ignorant or paranoid. Many of them are very much acting in their rational self-interest. You create NIMBYs very quickly by insulting neighbors, ignoring them, or otherwise dismissing their concerns. This is why Metro bends over backwards to make sure nobody can accuse them of acting unilaterally on its projects. Metro's approach is to educate everybody of the facts and all the options available. This approach works pretty well in balancing out local interests to those of the greater community.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 9, 2010 14:33:07 GMT -8
^ But how legitimate are such people's concerns about property values? Are there any studies that prove this; and if so, by how much are property values affected negatively?
By the way, in all honesty, if a high speed rail line was going to run adjacent to/or a block or two away from my house (which very well might happen if the 10 freeway option was chosen), all i'd really ask for is soundproof walls on the ROW and/or soundproof windows for the houses in my neighborhood. And even then, many people tell me that the sound generated from HSR isn't as much as you would think.
But I definitely wouldn't advocate for making such a rail line a subway or complain about the aesthetics of an elevated structure.....
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 9, 2010 16:15:47 GMT -8
Property values are probably negatively affected if you're by a newly constructed line, but not anywhere near a station. However, HSR will be routed along existing transportation infrastructure, at least through most cities. It's often quieter than other surface transportation modes, and certainly more visually attractive, so for many it shouldn't have a big impact on price up or down. I expect that property near a station would increase in value since it's like having the benefits of an airport without the noise, and it could be a driver for transit oriented development. A high speed train is likely to be drowned out by the sound of automobile traffic along the 10 freeway, though I'm sure many homeowners will use the opportunity to get the state to pay for their house upgrades. The Caltrain ROW on the San Francisco peninsula currently has diesel powered trains running at street level. Upgrading to grade separated electric trains will be a huge plus for the surrounding communities in terms of pollution and noise reduction (no more deafening horns at grade crossings), and increased safety. I think in many cases it's a "devil you know" kind of attitude backed up by a healthy dose of fear since home values represent such a large part of people's retirement funds.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 9, 2010 16:34:12 GMT -8
^^ Trust me, I'm not arguing against HSR. I realize that HSR is fairly quiet, and also safe if built right.
What I'm saying is that the approach of dealing with NIMBYs as if they are an enemy which must be steamrolled and defeated is counterproductive. Other than a few notable cases (Rancho Park, Beverly Hills, South Pasadena), Metro has done a pretty good job of avoiding NIMBYism in its project planning, by reaching out to the community, explaining the options and alternatives, and building the case for each project. The CAHSR people would be smart to adopt this strategy, if they haven't already.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 10, 2010 9:54:46 GMT -8
Who the heck is LA Neighbors United? Source: www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/la-neighbors-united-asks-feds-to-halt-transit-assistance-for-city-of-los-angeles-106995323.htmlLA Neighbors United Asks Feds to Halt Transit Assistance for City of Los Angeles - City is acting "duplicitously," group charges - Says federal government should withhold funds for alternative transportation until City aligns transportation and land use policies LOS ANGELES, Nov. 9, 2010 /PRNewswire/ -- LA Neighbors United, a local community group dedicated to making Los Angeles a better place to live and do business, today sent a letter to Federal Transit Administration Chief Peter M. Rogoff asking the federal government to "halt processing of any and all applications for federal transit assistance for alternative transportation projects in the City of Los Angeles," including New Starts funding, until the City government "demonstrates through its land use policy that it is committed to meeting the objectives of [Los Angeles County] Measure R and state environmental laws." The full text of LA Neighbors United's letter to Rogoff is provided here: "Dear Mr. Rogoff: "It is with deep regret that we send you this letter, but we very much need your help. "As you know, the County of Los Angeles is in the process of making a historic investment in multi-modal transportation infrastructure for our region. Encouraged by a dedicated band of transit activists and supported by the voters, this investment through Measure R has the potential to help transform Southern California — known for its air pollution and sprawl — into a more sustainable community and economy. "Unfortunately, the City of Los Angeles is proving to be a bad actor in this process. The City Council is poised, on Wednesday, to approve a community planning overlay system that will allow intensified development across virtually all 469 square miles of the City. "The proposed law makes no effort to target growth, including population and housing development, around transit corridors generally or Measure R funded transportation projects specifically. Rather, the new system would perpetuate the City's historically Wild West approach to anything-goes-anywhere planning, regardless of proximity to transit, and in clear violation of the California Environmental Quality Act. "Such an approach, which effectively decouples land use planning from transportation planning in the City of Los Angeles, is reckless, conflicting and incoherent. It jeopardizes the ability of Measure R projects to perform as anticipated. It also undermines Southern California's ability to meet the greenhouse gas emissions targets to be set under a new state law. "We are bringing this to your attention because our City is acting duplicitously … applying for federal loans, loan guarantees and grants while maintaining that the City is aligning its transportation and land use planning, when that simply is not the case. We are asking the County of Los Angeles to intervene, in hopes of fending off the worst potential new planning policy … which has implications not just for transit, but for our natural environment including the City's hillsides, canyons and scenic viewsheds, and the newly christened Los Angeles River. "Until the City demonstrates through its land use policy that it is committed to meeting the objectives of Measure R and state environmental laws, we ask you to halt processing of any and all applications for federal transit assistance for alternative transportation projects in the City of Los Angeles (but not for the rest of Los Angeles County), including "New Starts" funding applications. "We know this is asking a lot, and we are not happy about making this request, especially since it could jeopardize federal government support for the 30-10 plan to accelerate Measure R projects. We fully embrace 30-10, so long as the City's land use and transportation planning is aligned. "As we advocate for planned, managed growth, we know we are up against 100 years of Wild West planning culture in Los Angeles. But we also recognize the historic opportunity to remake Los Angeles into a sustainable city over the next two generations … to improve our transportation infrastructure, our energy infrastructure and our watershed … and to preserve what is so incredibly special about Los Angeles that so many of us continue to fight for our dream city despite harsh political resistance and other impediments. "Thank you for your consideration." The letter is signed by Cary Brazeman, who is identified as founder of LA Neighbors United. Copies of the letter were sent today to Denny Zane, Move LA; Bart Reed, The Transit Coalition; Mark Gold, Heal the Bay; Andy Lipkis, TreePeople; Joe Edmiston, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy; Darrell Steinberg, California State Senate; Members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (Gloria Molina, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Zev Yaroslavsky, Don Knabe and Michael Antonovich); Art Leahy, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; and Antonio Villaraigosa and Eric Garcetti, City of Los Angeles). SOURCE LA Neighbors United
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 10, 2010 11:53:04 GMT -8
What I'm saying is that the approach of dealing with NIMBYs as if they are an enemy which must be steamrolled and defeated is counterproductive. Other than a few notable cases (Rancho Park, Beverly Hills, South Pasadena), Metro has done a pretty good job of avoiding NIMBYism in its project planning, by reaching out to the community, explaining the options and alternatives, and building the case for each project. The CAHSR people would be smart to adopt this strategy, if they haven't already. Oh, i'm not saying don't reach out to the community. After all, the CHSR authority is ALREADY doing this. However.....at some point, a line must be drawn as to how far the authority should be willing to go to mitigate any negative effects to the existing ROW proposal - adjacent communities. We're already seeing what's happening with Palo Alto up north. It's foolish to think such disruption won't spread as more and more people know about the specifics of the plan. Closer to home, we're already seeing the beginnings of strong opposition from NIMBYs when it comes to the freeway routes. Haven't you read the newspapers lately? Alhambra has recently begun to go apeshit over the possibility of the HSR route going along the 10 freeway. They're already threatening to oppose this route COMPLETELY, regardless of whether it's, south, north, or in the middle of the freeway. And that's just Alhambra. I'm not sure Walnut residents know much about the possibility of the route going along the 60 freeway. When they do (it's not a matter of if, but when) find out, though, expect the media to go gaga over the story and ignite a firestorm. Just you wait..... I guess what i'm trying to say is that I think the window for HSR through the San Gabriel Valley is closing faster than people think. Like I (along with many others) said, building the route along EXISTING ROW's is a much better choice. Although Union Pacific certainly isn't making things easy (which isn't surprising, look at the Silver Line). But this is why we, along with residents, need to bang hard on UP's doors demanding they compromise, because if they don't, we might be S-U-N-K.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 10, 2010 14:06:24 GMT -8
I agree with jdcrasher and disagree with metrocenter on the NIMBY discussion. Regardless of how we consider it, the NIMBYs consider it as a war and they fill fight it to the end. metrocenter's point is valid that there should be community outreach and mitigation. We all agree on that. But jdcrasher has made a very important point that the more you give to the NIMBYs, the more they will ask. This is very valid. That's why there should be no compromises. The NIMBYs should be fought hard. Everybody should find out about their selfish nature, which is their driving force. It's the only way.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 10, 2010 14:20:07 GMT -8
Who the heck is LA Neighbors United? Source: www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/la-neighbors-united-asks-feds-to-halt-transit-assistance-for-city-of-los-angeles-106995323.htmlLA Neighbors United Asks Feds to Halt Transit Assistance for City of Los Angeles - City is acting "duplicitously," group charges - Says federal government should withhold funds for alternative transportation until City aligns transportation and land use policies LOS ANGELES, Nov. 9, 2010 /PRNewswire/ -- LA Neighbors United, a local community group dedicated to making Los Angeles a better place to live and do business, today sent a letter to Federal Transit Administration Chief Peter M. Rogoff asking the federal government to "halt processing of any and all applications for federal transit assistance for alternative transportation projects in the City of Los Angeles," including New Starts funding, until the City government "demonstrates through its land use policy that it is committed to meeting the objectives of [Los Angeles County] Measure R and state environmental laws." The full text of LA Neighbors United's letter to Rogoff is provided here: "Dear Mr. Rogoff: Thanks for posting this. Rail-transit planning has the magic ability to attract the most insane people out there. Expo NIMBYs, Beverly Hills, Little Tokyo NIMBYs, etc. are some of them. And now this Cary Brazeman (with his name nicely sounding like "crazy") tries to regroup the NIMBYs after the fall of Fix Expo. This is what Clint Simmons must have told Alex at the board meeting. He is also opposing the Expo Line on his Web site: "Following on yesterday’s post … Transit planning isn’t just about moving people from here to there, but creating a more livable city. Not to beat up our forefathers (and mothers) too badly, but think about where we’d be today had we initiated Westside transit a generation ago. If the subway to Santa Monica were coming online now, we’d be serving the Olympic Boulevard corridor with express buses from the Century City Metro stop, and we’d be looking at a different light rail route through South and West LA. We could take the right of way that runs through Rancho Park and turn it into a green way for jogging and biking, and thus unite the neighborhood rather than divide it. How lovely that would be!"
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 10, 2010 14:29:16 GMT -8
"We could take the right of way that runs through Rancho Park and turn it into a green way for jogging and biking, and thus unite the neighborhood rather than divide it. How lovely that would be!" Or alternatively, they could leave the right-of-way to rot as a mess of weeds for several decades. Oh wait, they tried that already!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 10, 2010 14:29:59 GMT -8
LA Neighbors United Asks Feds to Halt Transit Assistance for City of Los Angeles - City is acting "duplicitously," group charges - Says federal government should withhold funds for alternative transportation until City aligns transportation and land use policies Cary Brazeman (aka LA Neighbors United) is confused about a few things. First off, he seems to think that the subway and other transit projects are being planned by the City of L.A. (rather than Metro). Wrong. And secondly, he seems to think the Feds give two s**ts about L.A.'s land-use planning, enough to make them cut funding for new Metro Rail projects. Wrong again. This guy is a retired real estate exec who should buy a sailboat and drift off into the sunset.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 15, 2011 18:15:51 GMT -8
Just got a heads up that the New Starts funding proposal was rolled out early to coincide with the presidents FY 2012 budget proposal. The full document is available here: www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Annual_Report_main_text_FINAL_2_11_11.pdfHere is the slide that shows the Regional Connector and the Westside Subway information: Images cannot be more than 800 pixels wide. Please adjust. It was a bit confusing because while they showed both total capital cost and also total new starts funding levels, they both showed nothing under the proposed FY2012 budget. But the document goes on to explain this as follows: Other Capital Investment Program Funding Recommendations The President’s Budget for FY 2012 includes $400 million for other Section 5309–-eligible purposes. By reserving funding for additional projects in FY 2012, FTA recognizes that a project’s advancement does not necessarily coincide with the Federal budget process. Project sponsors can expedite project development as they overcome project uncertainties, address local funding issues, and utilize innovative procurement and delivery practices. Reservation of these funds allows FTA to be poised to provide funding for additional qualified projects. The $400 million in this category consists of the following two types of funding: Funding for Advanced Project Development - $300 million By reserving $300 million for this category, FTA may provide funding to projects that reach the later stage of project development before the end of FY 2012 but that are not recommended for funding at this time. These projects could include the Regional Connector Transit Corridor in Los Angeles, CA; the Westside Subway Extension in Los Angeles, CA; the LYNX Blue Line Extension–Northeast Corridor in Charlotte, NC; and the Columbia River Crossing Project in Vancouver, WA.So maybe our two projects are eligible for a share of the $300 million, along with the Charlotte system and the Vancouver project. It's interesting that the (proposed?) New Starts funding for the Westside Extension is $2.063 billion of a $5.340 billion project, or about 38% and the Regional Connector comes in at $819 million of a $1.367 billion project or 60%. That must be based on the Medium versus Medium High rating that the connector has. If this actually comes about, it would be great from a standpoint of extending the Measure R $$$. RT
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 16, 2011 17:03:25 GMT -8
BTW, just for clarification, the "Vancouver" project is really a Portland, Oregon project.
They want to get MAX light rail from north Portland across the Columbia to Vancouver, WA, which is really sort of a large suburb of Portland. It would turn MAX into one of just a handful of systems to cross state lines.
Don't want people to think that the federal government is paying for a transit project in Vancouver, BC ;D
And yes, this budget would be great news for Los Angeles as well.
|
|