California High Speed Rail Thread

[202_Cyclist]

Keep California's bullet train on track
Despite recent negative reviews by experts, in the long term the rail project still makes sense.


California High Speed Rail Authority shows an artist's rendering of a high-speed train speeding along the California coast. (California High Speed Rail Authority / Associated Press)

Editorial
Los Angeles Times
January 7, 2012

"California's proposed bullet train took another shot this week when an independent review panel issued a report concluding that the project wasn't financially viable. This followed negative reviews from the state auditor, the inspector general, the legislative analyst and the UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies.

It's hard to argue with such a distinguished group of experts, whose logic is unassailable. No source of funding has been identified for the project beyond the initial segment in Central California, they pointed out. Moreover, the location of that segment poses grave risks; if it were built near Los Angeles or San Francisco, it would still have major public benefits even if no more money could be found to extend it, but a spur from Fresno to Bakersfield alone would be a costly train to nowhere.

The trouble with this kind of expert analysis, though, is that it seldom takes politics into account. Planners didn't have much choice but to place the initial segment where they did, because to qualify for federal stimulus money they had to guarantee that construction would begin quickly, and the Central Valley portion was thought to be the only part of the line that would be ready to meet Washington's deadline. No source of future funding, such as a higher gasoline tax, has been proposed because the economy is rotten and voters would be unlikely to approve it right now. So does that mean the whole thing should be scrapped..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5272840.story

[202_Cyclist]

I suppose the Kings County Supervisors, the Peninsula NIMBYs and the Ayn Rand-teabaggers are fine with the Central Valley continuing to have some of the nation's worst air quality.

Central Valley sees worst pollution levels in 12 years

Modesto Bee
January 8, 2012

http://www.modbee.com/2012/01/07/201...heartland.html

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

I suppose the Kings County Supervisors, the Peninsula NIMBYs and the Ayn Rand-teabaggers are fine with the Central Valley continuing to have some of the nation's worst air quality.

Central Valley sees worst pollution levels in 12 years

Modesto Bee
January 8, 2012

http://www.modbee.com/2012/01/07/201...heartland.html

Dry winter so far all over California. It means dust in the SJV and there's not much that can be done about that.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Dry winter so far all over California. It means dust in the SJV and there's not much that can be done about that.

Not only dry, but windy too, kicking up particulates. High pressure in Nevada and Low Pressure in Arizona. Another Santa Ana set-up for today. Red Flag warnings are up again in LA County.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Dry winter so far all over California. It means dust in the SJV and there's not much that can be done about that.

If you're claiming this season's record-breaking pollution is not man-made so we can't do anything about it, then you are dead wrong.

We can and must continue to reduce the hazardous particulate matter emitted by fireplaces, factories, airplanes and automobiles that renders the air hazardous to breathe in stagnant winter weather patterns like this season, not only in the Central Valley but also in the Bay Area. Christmas Day as unbelievable--it was even worse than it looked, with air so filthy Oakland exceeded the federal maximum for PM 2.5 by a full 200%. HSR won't likely lower PM within metros, but it will reduce auto-emitted PM along its Central Valley route.

[Leo the Dog]

^^The environmental aspect won't get HSR built. So I wouldn't even bother arguing over it.

The financial aspect is the biggest hurdle and waning public opinion. Proponents should focus on the fact that future growth in CA will need/require another mode of transportation to aid the crowded air routes and highways.

[fflint]

Two arrows (^^) means you're responding to two posts above yours.

If you were responding to my post, I'll note I was just trying to keep the conversation on topic. There will absolutely be environmental benefits to building HSR as opposed to sticking with cars and airplanes as the state continues to grow. That's one good reason to support the project.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by fflint

Two arrows (^^) means you're responding to two posts above yours.

If you were responding to my post, I'll note I was just trying to keep the conversation on topic. There will absolutely be environmental benefits to building HSR as opposed to sticking with cars and airplanes as the state continues to grow. That's one good reason to support the project.

Yeah, I was responding to your post.

I totally agree with you that it's a transit alternative that will have the least effect on air pollution in CA and it is a reason to support the project. However, most people in CA/USA won't support spending $100 billion (with funding currently in question) for this reason alone. That's why I was saying that HSR supporters should focus on the over-crowding of current transit routes and infrastructure to gain support.

I would love to see HSR from SF - LA - SD, it makes too much sense.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Yeah, I was responding to your post.

I totally agree with you that it's a transit alternative that will have the least effect on air pollution in CA and it is a reason to support the project. However, most people in CA/USA won't support spending $100 billion (with funding currently in question) for this reason alone. That's why I was saying that HSR supporters should focus on the over-crowding of current transit routes and infrastructure to gain support.

I would love to see HSR from SF - LA - SD, it makes too much sense.

HSR and cars will use the same electric energy by the time it is built. The energy and resources discussion sites, oil company long-term plans, etc., believe the great majority of small commuter cars will be electric or hybrid.

Even if you believe that gasoline is here to stay for commuter cars (it's a free country) the number of people using transit WITHIN the LA and Bay areas dwarfs the LA-SF users. Moreover, the LA/IE have worse air than the Central Valley. Every environmental issue points to building locally and not in the Central Valley.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

^^The environmental aspect won't get HSR built. So I wouldn't even bother arguing over it.

The financial aspect is the biggest hurdle and waning public opinion. Proponents should focus on the fact that future growth in CA will need/require another mode of transportation to aid the crowded air routes and highways.

True that finances are not there and public support non-existant. False that another mode is needed.

Excellent air connections with plenty of excess capacity in SJ, Oakland, Ontario and other airports. Three major uncongested highways (101, 5, 99) connect LA and the Bay, each serving many, many cities that HSR will miss altogether.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by pesto

Excellent air connections with plenty of excess capacity in SJ, Oakland, Ontario and other airports. Three major uncongested highways (101, 5, 99) connect LA and the Bay...

And all experts in the field agree that our existing infrastructure is insufficient to handle the increase in intra-state travel resulting from population growth in the coming decades. Doing nothing will result in a degraded, polluted, overcrowded third-world California--which is unacceptable out here in the real world. The choice is between a clean, modern high speed rail system and a much more expensive, dirtier freeway/runway expansion scheme:

Transit choice: $98.5B for high-speed rail vs. $170B for roads, runways
David Goll
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal
Tuesday, November 1, 2011

"...the escalating costs of high-speed rail still pales in comparison to the $170 billion needed to add 2,300 lane-miles of freeway, four additional airport runways and 115 airline gates to accommodate the state’s increasing transportation needs."

[electricron]

"...the escalating costs of high-speed rail still pales in comparison to the $170 billion needed to add 2,300 lane-miles of freeway, four additional airport runways and 115 airline gates to accommodate the state’s increasing transportation needs."

Let's get real, that is not the ultimate choice. Highways and Runways will be expanded in the future anyways, but maybe not as much if high speed rail is implemented. Therefore HSR isn't going to save California taxpayers a net of $80 Million (170-90=80). Whatever amount saved will be spent on Highways and Runways. So no money will be saved. What happens is $90 Million being repurposed and used on HSR instead of on Highways and Runways.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by electricron

So no money will be saved.

That is not obviously true.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by fflint

That is not obviously true.

No more false than suggesting that no additional money will ever be spent on Highways and Runways within miles (you suggest the buffer size) of the HSR corridor. If HSR is a success, traffic near the HSR corridor will increase, making it necessary to spend more money to handle that additional traffic. Who's going to want to take a train if you can get to the train station or park near it?

[202_Cyclist]

electricron:

If HSR is a success, traffic near the HSR corridor will increase, making it necessary to spend more money to handle that additional traffic. Who's going to want to take a train if you can get to the train station or park near it?

This is perhaps the easiest criticism of high speed rail to dismiss. At the same time that CA's high speed rail investment is being built, metro regions throughout CA are going to be investing heavily in local rail projects, greatly improving mobility within CA's cities.

Just within the past few weeks, the Crenshaw/LAX light rail cleared a major federal environmental milestone. The BART extension to San Jose is set to get nearly $1B in federal money (http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19711087

I'm sure you're aware of all the rail projects planned under the 30/10 Plan investments (http://www.metro.net/projects/30-10/). There are also numerous other bus rapid transit, light rail and commuter rail projects planned throughout the state for the coming decade (http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...nned-for-2012/).

[202_Cyclist]

High-speed rail sticks to Antelope Valley route

By Ronald Campbell
January 9. 2012
OC Register

"After months of second thoughts, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has decided it was right the first time: The best northbound path from Los Angeles passes through Palmdale, not over the Grapevine.

The authority, which chose a zig-zag route via Palmdale in 2005, ordered a second look at the Grapevine route last May after getting sticker shock over the $15 billion cost estimate for building the train from Los Angeles to Bakersfield via Palmdale. A preliminary survey suggested that the Grapevine route would save $1 billion to $4 billion.

But the promised savings evaporated in more detailed studies released Monday. The authority published both a six-page study of the Grapevine alignment and a 78-page report on a Sylmar-to-Bakersfield route paralleling Interstate 5..."

http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/201...-route/146140/

The California High Speed Rail blog also has a more detailed discussion of this here: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2012/01/chs...ale-alignment/

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

This is perhaps the easiest criticism of high speed rail to dismiss. At the same time that CA's high speed rail investment is being built, metro regions throughout CA are going to be investing heavily in local rail projects, greatly improving mobility within CA's cities.
Just within the past few weeks, the Crenshaw/LAX light rail cleared a major federal environmental milestone. The BART extension to San Jose is set to get nearly $1B in federal money.
I'm sure you're aware of all the rail projects planned under the 30/10 Plan investments. There are also numerous other bus rapid transit, light rail and commuter rail projects planned throughout the state for the coming decade.

Never-the-less, more money than the total stated for CHSR is going to have to be spend near the CHSR corridor, whether it is highways, runways, or railways. Therefore, CHSR is being dishonest suggesting they're saving upwards to $90 Million....
Golly, I could state the same for adding two lanes to I-5 in one "rural" county in Central California, and completely ignoring what must be spent in "suburban and urban" Northern and Southern California. Ignoring what must be spent elsewhere isn't stating the truth!

[fflint]

Originally Posted by electricron

Never-the-less, more money than the total stated for CHSR is going to have to be spend near the CHSR corridor

That is not obviously true. Please link to a credible source backing up your claim.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by fflint

And all experts in the field agree that our existing infrastructure is insufficient to handle the increase in intra-state travel resulting from population growth in the coming decades. Doing nothing will result in a degraded, polluted, overcrowded third-world California--which is unacceptable out here in the real world. The choice is between a clean, modern high speed rail system and a much more expensive, dirtier freeway/runway expansion scheme:

Transit choice: $98.5B for high-speed rail vs. $170B for roads, runways
David Goll
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal
Tuesday, November 1, 2011

"...the escalating costs of high-speed rail still pales in comparison to the $170 billion needed to add 2,300 lane-miles of freeway, four additional airport runways and 115 airline gates to accommodate the state’s increasing transportation needs."

Please!!! The California government is rock-solid Democrat (gov, lt. gov, senate, assembly). Nevertheless, the the state auditor, the inspector general, the legislative analyst and the UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies (as goofy left as anyone in the US) have ripped HSR a new one on the lack of any comprehensible business plan. Have you been reading the news for the last 2 years?

Your money comparisons are apples and oranges (again). The only likely candidate for expansion would be 5 and it is moving just fine; I drive it regularly and it does 80 the whole way. Money spent on other freeways around the state is not relevant to HSR.

As for air, Ontario is CLOSING a terminal for underuse; SJ has huge excess capacity; LAX is finishing an expansion; Burbank and OC move easily and are not crowded; Oakland has an advertising campaign since they have so much excess capacity.

I agree on the degradation and pollution; but they are in LA and the IE not in the CV. In any case, the contribution of LA-Bay traffic to pollution in the CV is microscopic. Not even measurable. Look to local city driving, local trucks, big rigs, industry and ag uses for the real culprits. And, as noted before, in 30 years when HSR is complete, commuter cars will be entirely electric or hybrid.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

High-speed rail sticks to Antelope Valley route

By Ronald Campbell
January 9. 2012
OC Register

"After months of second thoughts, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has decided it was right the first time: The best northbound path from Los Angeles passes through Palmdale, not over the Grapevine.

The authority, which chose a zig-zag route via Palmdale in 2005, ordered a second look at the Grapevine route last May after getting sticker shock over the $15 billion cost estimate for building the train from Los Angeles to Bakersfield via Palmdale. A preliminary survey suggested that the Grapevine route would save $1 billion to $4 billion.

But the promised savings evaporated in more detailed studies released Monday. The authority published both a six-page study of the Grapevine alignment and a 78-page report on a Sylmar-to-Bakersfield route paralleling Interstate 5..."

http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/201...-route/146140/

The California High Speed Rail blog also has a more detailed discussion of this here: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2012/01/chs...ale-alignment/

This is a correct move. The High Desert will have the people. Santa Clarita-Sylmar s/b a separate connector to HSR (along with Oxnard-Camarillo-Woodland Hills-Burbank).