|
Post by spokker on Jan 27, 2010 20:34:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jan 28, 2010 1:34:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 28, 2010 19:59:23 GMT -8
I think a lot of us already knew that this was coming, but to see the actual numbers and some specifics is still exciting.
So.... if we can just separate the facts from the fiction, placate/ eliminate/ negotiate the NIMBYs and get moving on this, we'd be in great shape!
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jan 29, 2010 2:02:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 9, 2010 15:48:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Feb 9, 2010 22:47:32 GMT -8
And it appears that there is serious fraud over at the CA High Speed Rail Authority. Lots of documentation within the links. I am a high-speed supporter. But the activities of the Authority don't match financial reality. The risks of having the money spent for planning and not having an operator are drastic. Say it ain't so, Joe! A major potential problem is brewing for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The issue lies with unpublished changes made to the high-speed train ridership model possibly by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The specific change is one that deals with how ridership reacts to a change in train frequency. Intuitively, we know that service headways are negatively correlated to ridership since riders generally do not like waiting for trains.The more time between trains, the less people use them. But how strong is that correlation? According to the allegations, Cambridge determined that the correlation coefficient was -0.003, but it was stealthily changed to -0.179, which means that higher headways would impact ridership 60 times as much. Another issue is the aspect of relative attractiveness of air versus HSR. Because the Altamont Pass alternative would split service between San Jose and San Francisco, the unpublished change in the coefficient penalized Altamont more and made Pacheco look better. These charges are not being levied by NIMBY homeowners or HSR "deniers," but a woman (Elizabeth Alexis) with four years of graduate study in econometrics, which is a combination of economic theory and statistical analysis. Speculation is rampant and there are more questions than answers. Now the burden is possibly on the MTC to justify their unpublished changes to these allegations. The localities and environmental groups that sued the Authority are filing a motion to reopen the case, so some construction deadlines could be endangered.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Apr 10, 2010 13:42:17 GMT -8
I may have missed this when previously announced, but somehow I seem to recall that $400 million of the California HSR stimulus may be heading toward construction of the train box for the HSR and Caltrain under the Transbay Terminal. I just read in the SF-SJ alternatives analysis that came out a couple days ago that CAHSR dropped the idea of the Beale Street terminus and is committed to the Transbay Terminal. Per the TT website, they have already started utility relocation and demolition could follow shortly with the groundbreaking for the "big hole" to be in August this year. HSR $400 funding trainbox at TBT: www.sfexaminer.com/local/400-million-to-go-towards-Transbay-Transit-Center-train-station-82969812.htmlHere is a Google Maps view of the TBT, with the red outline showing the temporary transbay terminal that either just opened or is opening soon, and the blue outline showing where the new terminal development will be: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=101454594501032555882.000483e4be9ef9092e328&ll=37.789591,-122.39468&spn=0.006308,0.013433&t=h&z=17 The transbay terminal website has a bunch of very nice animations showing all aspects of what the site will look like: transbaycenter.org/interactiveSay what you want about HSR, Caltrain and SF in general, but the people who thought up that project/development can't be accused of not thinking big. If they pull that off it will be one of the most amazing sights in the city. Glad to see that the HSR authority finally agrees that the trains should go there. One other thing I noticed while looking through the SF-SJ AA: www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20100408092523_SF-SJ%20Preliminary%20Alternatives%20Analysis%20Report.pdfAnd yes, I did waste the entire morning reading most of the 135 pages, not even including the appendices. Caltrain and HSR will share 4 tracks from SF to SJ. 2 for Caltrain and 2 for HSR, but during maintenance or if there are problems all trains can use all tracks, this is for flexibility. HSR will run up to 125mph while Caltrain will be at most 110mph, with the entire run grade separated. Freight will only be running from Midnight to 5:00am. The biggest difference between the SF-SJ segment where track sharing is proposed and the LA-Anaheim segment is that the SF-SJ segment will be completely electrified. Caltrain had this in the works for awhile now, and the project will be implemented in concert with the HSR project. And a train box shot from one of the promo videos: Bart, wasn't that ridership bruhaha just caused by a typo? www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14379068?nclick_check=1RT
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 10, 2010 14:12:19 GMT -8
...Apparently there are competing proposals for the LA/Anaheim run to Las Vegas. DesertXpress and CA-NV Interstate Maglev.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Apr 10, 2010 14:26:11 GMT -8
Following up on Gokhans observation that the Chinese have "won" the HSR space race. It looks like now they have their sights set on California: www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/business/global/08rail.html?pagewanted=1&hp"China is offering not just to build a railroad in California but also to help finance its construction, and Chinese officials have already been shuttling between Beijing and Sacramento to make presentations, Mr. Crane said in a telephone interview." So the idea all along was that the California HSR system would be a public/private partnership. The state would put up its $10B, we would hopefully get another $10B or so from the Feds, and some private entity would come up with the remaining amount, and be allowed to operate the system and reap any profit while also paying back the bond money in some manner. We passed the $10B bond back in 2008, and the Feds have already coughed up $2.25B in the stimulus with more to come yearly, and now the Chinese may be willing to put up the remaining money. Is that a business plan that I see coming together All the HSR nay-sayers have been saying all along that this will never happen, because no one would ever step up to the plate and provide the missing $$$. Well, looks like the Chinese just stepped into the batters box. This is obviously a serious thing, since per the article the Chinese have built 1,200 miles of HSR lines *this year alone*. Couple that with the fact that they are one of the few entities on the planet who could simply write a check for the entire remaining amount, be it $12B, $20B or even $30B. I think it would be the most hilarious thing in the entire world, if the Chinese did just that. Swoop in, drop down $20B on their terms, build the system lickety split, start running trains at 220mph in the most heavily populated and wealthiest state in the US, make a ton of money along the way, and laugh all the way to the (Chinese) bank. And a interesting turn of events to boot. No more low wage Chinese laborers working on the US railroad built by American bankers. It would be low paid US construction workers, glad to be working at all, now working for the Chinese big shot bankers. Things sure change. RT
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 11, 2010 6:07:47 GMT -8
The Chinese bid will be interesting, and may lead to the French, German or Japanese companies increasing the amount of money would need to invest to get the right to operate trains. Personally, I would prefer one of the proven, Western companies to help build and operate our trains, but China has done a good job on their own service so far, and has a good safety record.
The best outcome would be for this to inspire some nationalistic pride in Washington. If the federal government could fund high-speed rail at a 20/80 match, as done for highway projects, we would have 50 billion right there without any need for private or foreign loans or investment. The operator could set ticket prices at 50% of airfare, make a small profit to help subsidize expansion of the system, but would not be burdened by the need to pay back the capital costs of the project.
We don't demand trucking companies or Greyhound pay back the cost of building the interstates, and we don't expect airlines to pay for building airports or air traffic control. Why s should high speed passenger trains be held to a different standard? If the state and federal government are putting up the majority of the money, it would be best to pay for the whole thing and run it for the public good (lower CO2 emissions, less traffic on the roads, faster trips, affordable tickets for families, students, and seniors), like the French system , rather than trying to maximize profits.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 16, 2010 7:11:10 GMT -8
Well, it looks like the $810 million for Wisconsin and the $400 million for Ohio are going to be re-allocated to states that want the money, and sooner rather than later: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/15/AR2010111506968.htmlI'm guessing that California will get a portion of this. Florida only needs about $600 million more to fully fund the Tampa-Orlando segment. There are a bunch of groups coming forward who want to operate the system, so maybe one of those groups could pony up the remaining $600 million. Even if the feds cough up the entire $600 million to complete Florida, that leaves $610 million from these "give backs" that could end up here. My advice to California is to get as much of the money as possible, and get as much built as possible by November 2012, if you get my point RT
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 16, 2010 9:38:54 GMT -8
Well, it looks like the $810 million for Wisconsin and the $400 million for Ohio are going to be re-allocated to states that want the money, and sooner rather than later: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/15/AR2010111506968.htmlI'm guessing that California will get a portion of this. Florida only needs about $600 million more to fully fund the Tampa-Orlando segment. There are a bunch of groups coming forward who want to operate the system, so maybe one of those groups could pony up the remaining $600 million. Even if the feds cough up the entire $600 million to complete Florida, that leaves $610 million from these "give backs" that could end up here. My advice to California is to get as much of the money as possible, and get as much built as possible by November 2012, if you get my point RT Not so fast......WI is going to keep the money (I expect the same with OH soon) RT @ttpolitic Wis Gov. Walker now saying he wants $810 m for rail... just not Milwaukee-Madison bit.ly/cuZ5zr
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 16, 2010 12:11:41 GMT -8
Ha! They must be joking. They don't want the project, but they'll gladly take the money.
I mean, c'mon.... there's got to be a way to make sure that the money gets spent on what it's been allocated for, otherwise what's the point of allocating it?
This isn't some kid spending their lunch money on candy, there's millions of dollars at stake here.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 16, 2010 12:34:54 GMT -8
Not so fast......WI is going to keep the money (I expect the same with OH soon) RT @ttpolitic Wis Gov. Walker now saying he wants $810 m for rail... just not Milwaukee-Madison bit.ly/cuZ5zr Well, the article says that they still want to use the money for highway funds, but are "open" to the idea of using it for a different rail corridor. It looks like they still don't get it. The money is supposed to be used for shovel ready projects. Trying to divert the money for a different purpose will entail *years* of environmental reviews. No shoveling anytime soon... If you read through the hundreds (literally) of comments in that paper every time they post a train story, you get an idea of the vitriol coming from both sides. Reading the political tea leaves, which I generally avoid at all costs much preferring train banter, I would say that now that the Governor candidate has actually been elected, he is beginning to see the light. A previous story mentioned that the "highway building lobby" gave him some huge amount of money, hence the anti-rail bias. Perhaps being an astute politician, and having been elected, it might be time for some creative back pedaling to scoop up the $810 million and put some people to work. Pretend to put up a fight for your principles, then take the money and run RT
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 16, 2010 17:04:30 GMT -8
I'm fairly sure what they're proposing is illegal. I expect they'll have to build the originally planned project or give the money back. They received a grant from the federal government in a competitive process to build a specific train line, and they keep making proposals to spend it in any way except the original proposal. If they were remotely fiscally responsible, they would realize they have an obligation to spend it the way they said they would, or not spend it at all. What idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 17, 2010 0:44:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 17, 2010 11:20:15 GMT -8
^ LOL, yeah I saw that on SSP. Guess we'll still have to manufacture CHSR train engine cars. ;D
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 16, 2011 7:24:17 GMT -8
Wow, Florida just sent back the $2.4 billion the Feds were going to pour into the Tamps-Orlando HSR system www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-scott-rejects-rail-money-20110216,0,2863027.story It should be a matter of days, if not hours, before we find out how much of that we will be getting, and how much the initial corridor will be extended with that money. And lets not forget that it will likely get matched to some degree with the Prop 1A funds too. RT
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 16, 2011 7:36:47 GMT -8
Wow, Florida just sent back the $2.4 billion the Feds were going to pour into the Tamps-Orlando HSR system www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-scott-rejects-rail-money-20110216,0,2863027.story It should be a matter of days, if not hours, before we find out how much of that we will be getting, and how much the initial corridor will be extended with that money. And lets not forget that it will likely get matched to some degree with the Prop 1A funds too. RT I just saw that. Wow. We know California won't be returning its money. I wouldn't necessarily conclude that California is going to get Florida's money. I know that's how it worked with other states, but I wouldn't be surprised if House Republicans attack and try to diminish total HSR funding.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 16, 2011 7:43:59 GMT -8
Metro, I believe that money is part of the stimulus that was passed a couple years ago. So, maybe the transportation secretary could just re-allocate it like he did the Wisconsin and Ohio money that was returned. It might require a House/Senate/Obama signing to actually pull that money from the HSR pot, which would never happen. I could have that wrong...
RT
In any case, BRING IT ON. Can't wait to see how this plays out now that we are the only game in town, so to speak. For a little while at least.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 16, 2011 9:24:41 GMT -8
Metro, I believe that money is part of the stimulus that was passed a couple years ago. So, maybe the transportation secretary could just re-allocate it like he did the Wisconsin and Ohio money that was returned. It might require a House/Senate/Obama signing to actually pull that money from the HSR pot, which would never happen. I could have that wrong... RT In any case, BRING IT ON. Can't wait to see how this plays out now that we are the only game in town, so to speak. For a little while at least. I believe you are right. This money has already been allocated to HSR by Congress through the Stimulus. The Transportation Dept. gets to allocate it between projects. The only way for Congress to pull it I believe is for them to pass new legislation which requires the Senate and Obama's signature.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 16, 2011 11:39:05 GMT -8
I believe you are right. This money has already been allocated to HSR by Congress through the Stimulus. The Transportation Dept. gets to allocate it between projects. The only way for Congress to pull it I believe is for them to pass new legislation which requires the Senate and Obama's signature. Good, well we'll be glad to help Florida out by taking the money off its hands.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Feb 16, 2011 13:52:51 GMT -8
It should be a matter of days, if not hours, before we find out how much of that we will be getting, and how much the initial corridor will be extended with that money. Weeks Id say. First they will try to get Florida to reconsider. Maybe Disney could apply some pressure. If this country had balls, all the construction and transport unions would take an indefinite strike until the governor caved. Then there will be some idiocy about florida trying to use the money for roads, the tea party trying to use it for debt payment, and the gop trying to use it to by fighter planes. Once all that stupidity is done, it will be spread around. Id guess 50% to california, and the rest to washington, new york, illinois and virginia.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 16, 2011 16:28:02 GMT -8
Part of me is really happy at the idea that California might be getting even more high-speed rail funds, as we really need it and I think the California HSR project is the strongest of the proposals.
However, I also realize that, just like Los Angeles rail transit shouldn't be given to just one part of the county, high-speed rail is something which should be spread out to more regions.
Rail needs the support of the whole country, and while South Dakota and Wyoming are not likely to get high-speed rail in my lifetime, we ought to at least make sure that high-speed rail gets to those areas which want it and deserve it.
So, yay us, but we do need to be vigilant that we don't lose what is rightfully ours.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 16, 2011 19:59:41 GMT -8
I swear, if they even so much as TOUCH our state's plan...
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 17, 2011 6:52:10 GMT -8
I don't think high speed rail should be built for the entire country at all - I think it should be built where it will be used by the most people. Linking major cities should be the goal. We have the perfect storm of large cities in a row to connect, outside of the east coast.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 17, 2011 8:32:18 GMT -8
In my opinion, it was just such a mistake for the President to say he wants 80% of Americans to have access to High Speed Rail in a few decades. The other political party can now use that as fuel to try and derail the HSR plan. And it looks like, in Florida, at least, they already have. I mean, not only has the governor there rejected funds for HSR, he thinks that the money would be better used on highways... CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? HIGHWAYS!!!
I swear, sometimes I wonder if Obama is two-faced. He's had months to take care of the HSR issue, as well as the 30/10 proposal.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 17, 2011 8:46:03 GMT -8
In my opinion, it was just such a mistake for the President to say he wants 80% of Americans to have access to High Speed Rail in a few decades. The other political party can now use that as fuel to try and derail the HSR plan. And it looks like, in Florida, at least, they already have. I mean, not only has the governor there rejected funds for HSR, he thinks that the money would be better used on highways... CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? HIGHWAYS!!! I swear, sometimes I wonder if Obama is two-faced. He's had months to take care of the HSR issue, as well as the 30/10 proposal. The President has been pretty busy ever since the November elections, which BTW have made his job much more difficult. HSR is just one issue on his plate: he cannot ignore the issues of the budget, taxes, health care, and the war in Afghanistan. 30/10 requires an infrastructure bank, which would require an act of Congress to create. While some Republicans have shown support for the idea, it's definitely no slam dunk, given the number of anti-spending Tea Party types in the House nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Feb 17, 2011 13:32:21 GMT -8
In my opinion, it was just such a mistake for the President to say he wants 80% of Americans to have access to High Speed Rail in a few decades.. Why? 80% of the country lives on the costs. Thats exactly what weve been talking about for years. Heres one way to visualize the US population...and which way they vote.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 21, 2011 5:30:14 GMT -8
I don't think high speed rail should be built for the entire country at all - I think it should be built where it will be used by the most people. Linking major cities should be the goal. We have the perfect storm of large cities in a row to connect, outside of the east coast. That's what Obama's 80% is about. I've done some preliminary mapping of metropolitan areas to see how population is distributed. I used MSA and CMSA populations, as it would be very likely that residents of a whole MSA, not just the principal city, would be train passengers. The mapping I've done so far is two metro areas that would be ideal for HSR hubs: Washington, D.C. and Atlanta. I used DC and not New York -- not because it's the nation's capital -- but because DC offers better connections to the South and the Midwest. If working on a 500-mile constraint, a DC train can head as far west as Indianapolis and as far south as northeast Georgia, but not to the heart of Atlanta or Hartsfield Airport. So far, I've only added the metros of >1 million to the maps. Just the metros within 500 miles of DC amount to 35 percent of the U.S. population. For Atlanta, I believe the result was about 20 percent of the U.S. population. Just these two hubs, and just the major metros, has a majority of the U.S. population on board. I have yet to calculate the other hubs I would have added: Chicago, Texas (Dallas, but one line would ring the Gulf from Houston to New Orleans), Los Angeles and Pacific Northwest (Seattle is the largest, but a Portland hub makes possible an unproductive but faster trip to Sacramento, allowing for a full West Coast line). I have also yet to calculate medium-sized metros (500K to 1M) that can also sustain a HSR stop. These are all major stops, and I reckon we'd go above and beyond the 80% mark.
|
|