HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2007, 4:20 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Bullet train plan may never leave station
By E.J. Schultz - Bee Capitol Bureau
Last Updated 12:05 am PST Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the High Speed Rail Commission, confers with George Spanos during a session on Monday. With the prospect of a massive cut in its budget, the commission is pondering its future.
Sacramento Bee/Kevin German

The state's perpetually delayed high-speed rail project faces yet another funding setback. And this one could be fatal, dashing the dreams of bullet train enthusiasts, including many in California's Central Valley.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes slashing funding for the High Speed Rail Authority from $14 million to $1.2 million, leaving the group with enough just to keep its doors open. The Legislature has yet to vote on the governor's spending plan.

"There's really no public purpose for me and my staff to be in office unless you want to move forward with the project," said Mehdi Morshed, the authority's executive director, who wants the governor and lawmakers to approve $103 million for the project next year. "If you don't want to move forward with the project, then close it down and save yourself some money."

With his focus on road building, the governor also wants the Legislature to indefinitely delay a $9.95 billion rail bond slated for the 2008 ballot. That would clear the way for $29 billion in bonds the governor wants to put on the ballot to pay for courthouses, schools and dams -- the second phase of his "strategic growth plan" that would spend billions of dollars on roads but nothing on high-speed rail.

"In our plan that we put together, it didn't fit in," Schwarzenegger said in an interview last week. "It doesn't mean that it is not going to fit in in the future."

The electric-powered railroad would be similar to the bullet trains prevalent in Europe and other parts of the world.

Trains traveling up to 220 mph would speed the length of the state, zooming through the Central Valley with stops in Bakersfield, Fresno, Merced, Modesto, Stockton and Sacramento. An express trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles would take less than 2 1/2 hours.

Construction costs are estimated to approach $40 billion. But Morshed said the longer the state waits, the more expensive it will get.

Tracks dedicated to the system would, for the most part, be built next to existing tracks. More than 1,000 grade crossings -- where the railroad goes under or over roads -- are needed.

To build the crossings, the authority needs to secure rights of way. But that gets harder and more expensive each year, especially in high-growth areas like the Central Valley, where land is getting sucked up for other uses, Morshed said.

Next year, he said, $40 million is needed to start buying rights of way and $63 million for planning and engineering.

Though its future is in doubt, the authority is pushing forward. At a board meeting Monday, members authorized their staff to finalize three multiyear engineering contracts worth nearly $300 million.

Established in 1996, the authority has spent $30 million to plan the route and do environmental reviews, Morshed said. The authority's budget has $702,000 for salaries and benefits this year. Three full-time employees and one part-timer are on staff, with plans to hire three full-time staff members in the next month.


All that money would be wasted if the project were halted, board members said Monday.

"It would be an obscene extravagance if this investment of taxpayer money is simply ended," said board Chairman Quentin Kopp, a former state senator and San Mateo County judge.

To date, the Legislature has shown little zeal for the project. Rail bond ballot measures have been delayed twice, in 2004 and 2006. Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, said he would be hesitant to push for another delay.

"I did say to folks that are very committed to the high-speed rail that I would work with them to see to it that we put it on the 2008 ballot," he said recently. "I think that it's the right thing to do."

High-speed rail lacks the "very powerful old lobby" of developers, carmakers and airlines that have driven the infrastructure debate, said state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, a rail supporter whose mother, Fran Florez, sits on the nine-member rail authority board.

"Because people haven't seen (high-speed rail), touched it or ridden on it, most people, at least in the Legislature, they don't think it can be done," Florez said.


U.S. Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, who led the charge for rail while in the Legislature, said there is a misconception the project would benefit only the Valley. "This is far bigger than simply being a Valley train," he said. "This is a statewide, 700-mile system that would benefit over 80 percent of the state's population."

Consumer appetite could be growing. Intercity rail ridership, operated by Amtrak, jumped from 2.3 million in 1994-95 to 4.4 million in 2004-05, according to a report released Friday by the Legislative Analyst's Office.

The governor, though, has more immediate concerns.

"I feel that our roads are in such horrible shape -- the worst in the nation," he said. "We needed to fix the roads, we needed to expand the roads, we need to add lanes to our highways and freeways."

http://www.sacbee.com/391/story/115545.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2007, 5:15 PM
william william is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 100
I have heard increasing sentiment that, because of the huge cost, that the LA-SF/OAK route will be built first with the extensions to San Diego and Sacramento to come at a later date. If this is the ultimate proposal, I know I'll be voting - and working - for the defeat of HSR in California.

I believe in the concept, but I know precisely what will happen with this phased approach. The LA/SF segment gets built, and then the rail authority determines the extensions are "too expensive" and that the present system serves the majority of the state's population and we can connect Sacramento and San Diego with existing, less-exotic technology.

Build all of it - or none of it - but I don't want to hear about any "phased" approach. In this case, "second phase" actually means "never phase."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2007, 5:16 PM
slock slock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 383
Re: Alta California

"As an Angeleno, I know my priorities and its not getting to Fresno faster."

Alta California,

I respect the excellent ideas you have put forth in the map, but the construction of the LA system is more of a municipal obligation than a state one. I have ridden many parts of LA's subway network and have enjoyed them very much and only hope for their expansion.

CAHSR however, would provide more of boost to your network than anything else possibly could. It is not necessarily to get you to "Fresno faster," though Fresno will experience trendous growth, the point is to connect the metropolitan regions of the state and their varied industries seamlessly. Its goal is to move people and goods the medium distance that is too far to drive and too short to fly. Beyond connecting industries and business, tourism will increase dramatically. If it's cold in Sacramento, and I want to go to the beach, I can take a comfortable train down to LA for the day and the subway out to Santa Monica. I would be arriving without a car, so it would be an incredible shot in the arm to transit in the state's metropolitan areas. In LA, Union Station would become the hub, San Francisco, Transbay Terminal, San Diego, Santa Fe Depot, etc.

In truth, because of the enormous ridership potential and transit oriented development HSR would spur, your map is more likely to become reality with HSR than without it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2007, 9:45 PM
Alta California Alta California is offline
405 Trainer
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by slock View Post
Re: Alta California

"As an Angeleno, I know my priorities and its not getting to Fresno faster."

Alta California,

I respect the excellent ideas you have put forth in the map, but the construction of the LA system is more of a municipal obligation than a state one.
Map's not mine. It's damian's from this forum.
__________________
"We aren't at war with Iraq either. We didn't go to war with Iraq and it hasn't existed in 4 years.."
--Chicago3rd
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2007, 10:35 PM
J Church J Church is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 12,883
The plan has always been to build the mainline first.
__________________
San Francisco Cityscape
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2007, 11:23 PM
slock slock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 383
William,

That is the proposal, and will be the proposal on the ballot. The entire point of the project is to connect the state's four largest metropolitan regions. I think you're being too skeptical of the practicality of the plan.

One of the main objectives is to provide alternatives to air and freeway travel. Why would they not complete the job? If I had to go from LA to Sacramento, I'd have to take the train to SF and then rent a car or find some other way to get there. The success of the project comes with its connection of regions and industries within the state; agriculture with entertainment, tech with finance, government with universities. It would be a stunted endeavor at best to not extend to Sacramento and San Diego, and I don't think that's even an option.

The reality, however is that it would be the largest public works project in history. They don't have the $40B in the bank and the enormity of the project being built at once could actually strain the state. So in terms of pure feasibility, the goal is to do it in two phases, the most heavily trafficked segment first and the two extensions on either end after that.

Every single large project, from highrises to bridges, to tunnels and developments is usually divided into phases. This is merely a replication of that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2007, 11:49 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by slock View Post
If I had to go from LA to Sacramento, I'd have to take the train to SF and then rent a car or find some other way to get there. The success of the project comes with its connection of regions and industries within the state; agriculture with entertainment, tech with finance, government with universities. It would be a stunted endeavor at best to not extend to Sacramento and San Diego, and I don't think that's even an option.
The CalTrans subsidized, AMTRAK-run Capitol Corridor trains provide darned good service (15 trains a day each way - http://www.capitolcorridor.org/inclu...emporarytt.pdf ) between the Bay Area and Sacramento right now. High speed routes always require "feeder" service from non-high speed routes and this would be an example of that, but it's wrong to suggest you couldn't complete your trip by rail if the HSR compenent went only from SF to LA. Their is good "feeder" service (to Sacramento and San Diego) on both ends now.

You're probably right it isn't an option because of politics, but I think even the good people of Sacto and SD would be smart to support the idea if it could move the project forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 12:18 AM
william william is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by slock View Post
William,

That is the proposal, and will be the proposal on the ballot. The entire point of the project is to connect the state's four largest metropolitan regions. I think you're being too skeptical of the practicality of the plan.

One of the main objectives is to provide alternatives to air and freeway travel. Why would they not complete the job? If I had to go from LA to Sacramento, I'd have to take the train to SF and then rent a car or find some other way to get there. The success of the project comes with its connection of regions and industries within the state; agriculture with entertainment, tech with finance, government with universities. It would be a stunted endeavor at best to not extend to Sacramento and San Diego, and I don't think that's even an option.

The reality, however is that it would be the largest public works project in history. They don't have the $40B in the bank and the enormity of the project being built at once could actually strain the state. So in terms of pure feasibility, the goal is to do it in two phases, the most heavily trafficked segment first and the two extensions on either end after that.

Every single large project, from highrises to bridges, to tunnels and developments is usually divided into phases. This is merely a replication of that.
Then I, a great advocate of mass-transit and HSR, will contribute to the "No" campaign and vote no on the proposal. What you outlined above is mighty "purdy" talk. But that's all it is, talk: and I've heard it all before.

I voted yes on local transportation sales taxes in San Diego. Although I'm glad I voted yes, I sure didn't get anything close to what was originally promised. Has there been a single transportation sales tax that has delivered everything it promised to get passed? If there is, they've kept it a pretty good secret.

You see my point? The reason I'm being skeptical is that I've been around this state long enough to know that the project is going to cost much more than proposed. At that point, a decision will be made that the extensions are no longer feasible. And those of us in San Diego and Sacramento will have been taken for a ride alright, but by the HSR commission, not on a train. No thanks...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 1:27 AM
Damien Damien is offline
Cool dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA-Leimert Park & Boston-Cambridge
Posts: 404
1) The majority of people including our governor who originally had NO mass transit money in the bonds, don't understand the simple concept of capacity as in rail has higher capacity and can handle greater volume than a freeway.

2) I'm not going to even get started on the $35 billion estimate. It doesn't cost no fricking $50 million a mile to build on existing ROWs in the middle of fricking no where - NOT EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 1:47 AM
william william is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien View Post
2) I'm not going to even get started on the $35 billion estimate. It doesn't cost no fricking $50 million a mile to build on existing ROWs in the middle of fricking no where - NOT EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
Well, thank you for not getting started. But please point out to me a single large transportation project in California that came in under budget. Remember, using your number above, just a 5% cost overrun means 175 million dollars. That's a lot of money to some people (including me).

And don't get me started on schedules.......

The clock is ticking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 2:26 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by william View Post
Then I, a great advocate of mass-transit and HSR, will contribute to the "No" campaign and vote no on the proposal. What you outlined above is mighty "purdy" talk. But that's all it is, talk: and I've heard it all before.

I voted yes on local transportation sales taxes in San Diego. Although I'm glad I voted yes, I sure didn't get anything close to what was originally promised. Has there been a single transportation sales tax that has delivered everything it promised to get passed? If there is, they've kept it a pretty good secret.

You see my point? The reason I'm being skeptical is that I've been around this state long enough to know that the project is going to cost much more than proposed. At that point, a decision will be made that the extensions are no longer feasible. And those of us in San Diego and Sacramento will have been taken for a ride alright, but by the HSR commission, not on a train. No thanks...

William I would have to agree with you. I'm also a strong proponent of rail and mass transit, but as of yet am not sold on the idea of a larger statewide HSR system. (And before anyone jumps on the 'hey your in Chicago" line; I'm still a native and registered voter of California)

The reasons you've stated are exactly the reasons why I think a large majority of voters will be skeptical of HSR. A $30 billion dollar proposal really means $50 billion by the time the system is complete, (see Bay Bridge Cost overruns or Boston's 'Big Dig'), which would no doubt sink any chance of the San Francisco-Sacramento and Los Angelels-San Diego spurs ever getting built.

People in Sacramento and San Diego just wont go for such a proposal and unless the HSR proposal can overcome what I suspect will be overwhelming opposition in those areas, it's doubful HSR could ever succeed at the polls.

I'm still open to the idea of HSR, by first constructing the two Spurs connecting Sacramento-San Francisco and Los Angeles and San Diego.

The states four largest metropolitan areas are already connected in the north and south by conventional rail service, which has enjoyed strong passenger growth over the years. Connecting those regions with faster reliable service would translate into even more riders. If the system then proves cost effect to construct and operate, a larger statewide system could then be looked at.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 2:30 AM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,518
but by then it will cost much more.

Time is the key here people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 2:51 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
I also agree with everything william said.

Quote:
Bullet train plan may never leave station
By E.J. Schultz - Bee Capitol Bureau
Last Updated 12:05 am PST Tuesday, January 30, 2007

High-speed rail lacks the "very powerful old lobby" of developers, carmakers and airlines that have driven the infrastructure debate, said state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, a rail supporter whose mother, Fran Florez, sits on the nine-member rail authority board.

"Because people haven't seen (high-speed rail), touched it or ridden on it, most people, at least in the Legislature, they don't think it can be done," Florez said.
The lack of lobbyist on the issue at the Capitol is a giant
reason why this might never get off the ground. No one is
down there pounding the message into the legislators
minds that this is important.

I work for a lobbyist; it's amazing how things get done
when a hard press is done on an issue or bill.

Comcast for instance hired several lobbying firms to push
their bill through the system for approval... they smothered
the capitol. Comcast’s efforts loosened up current laws and
opened up other markets that they could not compete in before.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 2:55 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
The states four largest metropolitan areas are already connected in the north and south by conventional rail service, which has enjoyed strong passenger growth over the years. Connecting those regions with faster reliable service would translate into even more riders. If the system then proves cost effect to construct and operate, a larger statewide system could then be looked at.
Sacramento with the Bay Area and San Diego with LA are also already connected with service that is much better, faster and more frequent than the north-south service. CalTrans has already spent significantly to improve the Capital Corridor and Pacific Surfliner services (adding double track and sidings so that pasengers will not be endlessly delayed by freight as they are on the north-south route). To me, someone who rides trains a lot, you sound distressingly unfamiliar with what already exists.

I will repeat that one would easily and fairly quickly be able to go by train from San Diego to Sacramento by train if a HSR link between LA and the Bay Area only were built. I support the best (read largest) system that is politically possible, but if money is short, the Bay Area to LA segment is clearly the most important because it creates a pretty good complete rail system when added to what exists.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 2:59 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
If it's not going to Sacramento from the beginning... I'll be
voting no. It will never happen other wise
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 3:15 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I would actually like to see an approval to build the SF-LA connection first, and then have a commitment to build the extensions some years after that.

30 billion sounds about right, at least for now. In a few years it will go up though, thats just the way it is, and I'm willing to bet that whatever it ends up being, at least 35 to 40 percent of that cost will be in the SF Peninsula area.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 3:29 AM
william william is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
If it's not going to Sacramento from the beginning... I'll be
voting no. It will never happen other wise
Attention HSR backers: This is how a lot of people feel.

If you can't overcome people in Sacramento and San Diego's legitimate scepticism, you are not going to see HSR in California. It's that simple.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 3:38 AM
william william is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 100
One last note: Frankly, it would be much cheaper to build the route to Sacramento and then connect to SF on the existing Capital Corridor trains. Plus, eliminating the LA spur to Irvine and the either of the Bay spurs (the proposed line splits to serve both SF and OAK as shown on map) would save a lot of money that could go toward the SD route.

You would then have San Diego, LA and Sacramento all served with HSR and SF served with existing high-frequency trains.

And of course, the promised LA/Irvine and San Francisco lines could then be built in "Phase Two..."

But LA and SF would never go for that. Their faith in later extensions is equal to mine.

Last edited by william; Jan 31, 2007 at 4:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 4:07 AM
J Church J Church is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 12,883
Yeah, I've pretty much given up on arguing with folks who are dug in.

Fortunately polls have shown a strong majority in favor of the project. We just need to get to a vote.
__________________
San Francisco Cityscape
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2007, 4:12 AM
CUCa's Avatar
CUCa CUCa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Francisco, Ithaca
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by william View Post
One last note: Frankly, it would be much cheaper to build the route to Sacramento and then connect to SF on the existing Capital Corridor trains. And eliminating the LA spur to Irvine (as shown on map) could save a lot of money that could go toward the SD route.

Of course, these additions could then be built in "Phase Two..."

But LA and SF would never go for that. Their faith in later extensions is equal to mine.
I think you do make good points and are right to be skeptical, but honestly Los Angeles and San Francisco are, hands down, the two most important, most populous (LA metro and Bay Area), and biggest job centers in not only California but the Western United States. It really makes most sense to connect these two cities with high speed rail first. This is, according to forecasts (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/plan/pdf/Plan_3.pdf, see table 3.2) the corridor that will see the highest volume of traffic.

You go with what just plain makes most sense first. The system, as all other high speed rail systems in the world, will start making money. Phase 1 will make the most money (see the table). Given this high probablity of success, the later extensions I think are a lot more possible than you think.

This system, if ever built, will be the single most important piece of infrastructure in our state's history. Building it in phases is the only feasible way to pay for it. The current phasing system (LA to SF first) makes most sense in terms of economics. As others have said, the more we wait, the more we'll have to pay for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:02 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.