I didn't know about the stand-alone utility rule--I appreciate the foresight. I fully support immediate construction of this segment.

Really? They won't start building it until Sept 2012?? Cmon, what's taking so long, the funding is there isn't it? They have to start ASAP to ensure that it'll be too late for republicans to scrap the project should the worst happen in 2012.

It's practically 2011 as it is. Given that materials must be procured, land rights managed, etc. 2012 seems about right.

They probably would take longer if they could, but the project has to start by a before a certain point in 2012 to qualify for the stimulus money CAHSR received.

Sometimes I wonder just how smart you have to be to make decisions like this. Maybe it's just me, but building out there in the middle of nowhere seems like a bad move (no offense to any of us that may live out there), pretty much a last resort ditch. Looks like the peninsula wants no part of it for themselves, but wouldn't it be better it LA got the funds instead and at least built it in a place where more people could actually use it? I guess it's important to start this thing in the first place but they could have picked a better place to do so.

The last round of federal funds handed to CAHSR had strings attacked which said all federal funds given so far to the project must be used in the central valley. Pretty much made up CAHSR Authority's mind for them.

You don't know Jerry Lewis very well. Do you?

His sudden and dramatic reversal on earmarks and other federal spending is entirely due to the Republicans taking control of the House of Representatives. Only weeks ago, Jerry Lewis was the Republican at ground-breaking and ribbon-cutting ceremonies for projects all over his district that were funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

hopefully, that rule will be moot with the construction of the rest of the system. i too support construction of this segment for the first phase.

I lived in the Central Valley for two years from 2007-2009 and trust me, this is the best way to make lemonade out of lemons (in regards to the money and time required to build the high speed rail). South of Sacramento all the way to just north of Bakersfield has suffered much greater losses in this recession than LA or the Bay Area. The housing market is in shambles and unemployment is through the roof. To add insult to injury, the Central Valley also has aging infrastructure that could really use an overhaul.

It just makes sense that if you are going to dump billions of stimulus dollars into the state to build this project that you would do it in the most depressed place. Creating jobs in a region with such high unemployment is very smart.

The rails in the central valley are used very heavily by freight as it is the bread basket of California and of much the United States (The Central Valley actually produces more dairy products than any state in the Midwest). In the worse case scenario where they just appropriate the newly built line in the the transit system (if it were to never be electrified), it would still be a much needed improvement for that area.

Building this rail in the Central Valley will be the chore of the whole CA HSR project. It's a hard sell for any reason but stimulating the economy. So it seems like the best place to start while they can use the stimulus card and cash in on the stimulus money. Once they get the capability to reach high speed from Bakersfield to Merced not only will it be easier to sell High Speed Rail to the rest of the state, but they will also have the least profitable segment safely out of the way.

It's interesting that they are going to veer from the Visalia/ Tulare area (roughly 175,000 people) to Corcoran; I guess I just assumed the line would keep following the 99 down to Bakersfield.

It looks like they're trying to follow the San Joaquins route, and that makes sense because of the statement that they'll tie the new track into existing Amtrak service if more funding doesn't come through.

Official: California high speed rail won't be de-railed by GOP plan
 

Official: California high speed rail won't be de-railed by GOP plan

By Adolfo Flores, Staff Writer
Posted: 11/28/2010
Pasadena Star-News


"Officials with the California High-Speed Rail Authority expressed concern about a plan to pull $2 billion in stimulus funds but remain optomistic the train will be built.

The Authority plans to run trains on several miles of track through the San Gabriel Valley by 2035 and hopes to have a San Francisco to Los Angeles route in place by 2020.

But the ascendancy of Republicans in the House of Representatives who oppose the Obama Administration's signature transportation initiative could quickly derail federal funding.

"We're very aware that getting additional federal funding is an ongoing challenge," authority spokeswoman Rachel Wall said. "A lot of new politicians and new elected officials are taking office and what we're eager to do is continue sitting down with more of them, we take it as an invitation to continue dialogue."

Earlier this month Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, incoming head of the House Appropriations Committee introduced the American Recovery and Reinvestment Rescission Act. The proposal seeks to pull back $12 billion in unspent stimulus funds to close the nation's $1.3 trillion budget deficit...."

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_16728401

Oh man... Japan will be beaming people to Mars and we'll have a space elevator and fighting off an alien invasion by the time actual trains start running. And after the aliens win they will use the trains the same way we used Germany's autobahns in World War 2. We are building a high speed rail system for our future alien overlords, great.

source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNN61GL54K.DTL

The first segment is getting slagged, but having it connect smoothly on both ends to existing railroads is a very good idea. Worst case scenario, Amtrak gets dedicated rail trackage instead of sharing it with cargo lines. It's incremental, but it is definitely progress--if they'd pushed to double-track for Amtrak, they would have had to settle for even less. Intra-city passenger rail wins in the best and worst case scenarios.

The French lignes à grande vitesse are normally rural constructions. As are their Italian and German counterparts. This is a highly efficient way of installing HSR for the rather obvious reason that it utilizes existing infrastructure where it's most expensive to build new infrastructure (the cities). As such, building the more rural parts of the run first is a good idea. After all, the first superhighway built in the United States was between Carlisle, PA, and Irwin, PA--hardly towns anyone's ever heard of.

First it was San Francisco & Sacramento - Los Angeles & San Diego
Then, they said it would be San Francisco - Anaheim
After that, it was Merced - Bakersfield
And now, it's Borden - Corcoran

......UMMMM.....AM I THE ONLY ONE NOTICING A PATTERN HERE?

SF/SAC - LA/San Diego is the whole line.

SF-LA (or SF-Anaheim...not sure) is the first phase.

Merced-Bakerfield is the general area where the feds said it HAS to begin construction on the condition that the HSR Authority has accepted its grant money.

Borden-Corcoran is the specific area within that federal-demanded area, within the first phase that was selected to begin construction. Nothing will operate until the first phase is complete and ready. Other sections within the first phase will be constructed concurrent to the Borden-Corcoran section. I dont think many people understand those last two parts...It has to start somewhere.

Peer report calls for 'thorough reassessment' of high-speed rail project
 

Peer report calls for 'thorough reassessment' of high-speed rail project

BY JOHN COX
Friday, Dec 03 2010 08:34 PM
Bakersfield Californian

"Another bucket of cold water doused the California High-Speed Rail Authority Friday with the public release of a peer-review report that calls for a "thorough reassessment" of issues ranging from the multibillion-dollar project's business model to its questionable funding sources and revenue projections.

Most if not all of the criticisms raised in the state-ordered report of the authority's 2009 Report to the Legislature have been discussed publicly before, and the document itself is essentially an advisory that carries no enforcement weight.

Even so, the report carries unique significance in that it assembles observations by transportation industry people and presents them in a focused, urgent manner likely to fuel growing dissatisfaction with the project's progress..."

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/loca...d-rail-project

Plan B: High-speed track could be used by conventional trains
 

Plan B: High-speed track could be used by conventional trains

BY JOHN COX
Bakersfield Californian
Saturday, Dec 04 2010

"Just in case the skeptics are right and high-speed rail never fully materializes in California, project officials are discussing a back-up plan with Amtrak, BNSF Railway Co. and Caltrans that would still attempt to shorten passenger train travel times along the initial, 65-mile Central Valley segment approved Thursday.

The federally required back-up plan would tie the new route's northern and southern ends to BNSF lines already used by Amtrak's San Joaquin service, allowing passenger trains to go 105 mph or more over at least 54 miles of new high-speed track.

That's a little less than half the speed true high-speed rail can achieve, but it's about a third faster than the 79 mph Amtrak's Central Valley service is limited to now because it shares the route with freight trains..."

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/loca...ntional-trains

You know, honestly, if they are going to compromise this much why even do the project at all? Its not the project that will have the same benefits the people of California voted yes on prop 1A(I think that was it?) for.

This whole thing sucks. Do it right the first time please. It would be a lot of money to spend to build a sort of fast line through podunk places that nobody will ride, only for everyone to be dissatisfied and want to try the bullet train idea again.

In the long run, I wouldn't be surprised if building it in phases would make it more expensive, with the NIMBYs having more time to derail the project.

Fresno, CA is a podunk place? The city has a population of 500,000 and the metropolitan area has a population of around 922,000. They don't have quite enough funding at this point to build Fresno to Bakersfield, so they are building the first segment pretty much centered on Fresno. Have to start the building of the HSR system someplace. In the middle makes sense to me, because then they can build north and south from there. Better than starting it in the SF to San Jose segment where the entire project could get bogged down for years before any serious construction starts. It is worth remembering that the CA HSR didn't have any federal funding a year ago. Going to be tough to get more federal funding in the next several years, but I would not rule it out.

Looking at the funding numbers for the 1st segment, there is a large reserve of around 20% added on top of the earlier already padded (in case they run into problems) cost estimates. If they manage to keep the project close to on budget, they may be able to eventually put around $800 million of this $4 billion towards the next segment.

^ That doesn't negate the fact that Fresno is still a podunk place :haha:

What exactly are you upset about? The project is still as it was when voted on. This section they are building is part of the whole line and the line would not open without it.

Gotta start somewhere.

Dude, don't you guys get it? When members of a certain political party inevitably see this, do you really think they're going to see this the same way we do? They WILL classify this as "waste", and they WILL try and stop it from happening. It's already happening. And guess what? Nobody's going to be there to lecture them, because the other political party is too chicken to fight.

Also, the media is not on their side (640 John&Ken show already is whining about it). Which means that, eventually, when more bad news comes out - and I have a feeling there's more to come - the public won't be either.

Gotta start somewhere, so I'm totally fine with this. Makes sense to tie in both ends with the current freight/Amtrak line as well. Hell, even just a full Fresno-Bakersfield line would be a nice thing, and probably COULD be opened while construction continues from Bakersfield-L.A. Basin and Fresno to the Bay Area/SF/Sac...

Starting construction in the Central Valley is cheaper and faster than in the urban areas, and thus makes the most sense from a "bang for your buck" standpoint as well. Also it helps politically, as the Central Valley tends to be more right-wing, more prone to be against rail to begin with. Start the project there, and you eliminate a lot of political issues.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Well, suppose I invested my money in a company to build a railroad and the board decided they didn't have enough money or source of money to build 3/4of it but decided to take my money and build-out Corcoran. Would I (and the other shareholders) applaud their boldness or sue them for gross mishandling of a trust? No response needed.

And, yes, the vote is a complete PR disaster. It's hard to imagine the average voter, the GOP controlled House or any of the groups that are looking for mitiagation in their neighborhoods not using this as an example of government power run amok. If you give it to them they will spend it. Shamelessly.

btw, Fresno has a lot of people but 95 percent plus live in spread out single story suburbs or unwalkable 2 story apartment neighborhoods. Its need for transit of this sort is approximately zero. And meanwhile LA and the Bay are choking with traffic and people who want and need mass transit. That's why California is viewed as "broken".

There is no stop in Corcoran. Fresno is the only solid stop in this segment (they are considering Hanford, but that would have to replace another station somewhere else).

People are making wild assumptions and being very ridiculous about this. You might as well predict a 5-train pileup and start condemning the HSRA now for this tragic event that you thought of in your head.

This portion of the line is part of the first phase of the project. It is NECESSARY for the first phase of the project. The project will not open with it, and it will not open until the rest of the first phase is done.

There is no connection to Amtrak, that is just a distant and unlikely plan B, should no other funding materialize (keep in mind they aren't even using half of the existing funding yet).

Some politicians have made moves to take funding from CAHSR, but if you actually look at it with any scrutiny, they cant. Obama would not sign a bill that defunds his own pride and joy stimulus. The next transportation committee head is a republican that supports HSR.

I am not making up wild assumptions and tragic events. The backlash against HSR is real, and it's already beginning to take out the less important projects like those in Ohio and Wisconsin.

So how long will the track sit there unused?

I'd say you're jumping to about a million conclusions long before any worrying is necessary, pesto.

HSR isn't going to do a damn thing for intra-city transit anyhow, so the traffic choking in the Bay Area and the L.A. Basin's not really going to change. HSR is more competition for airlines than cars, anyhow! Or did you suddenly expect a big drop in traffic in those regions when HSR stops will only be every 20 miles or so?

Aaron (Glowrock)

Did people really think the entire 500 mile system would get built all at the same time?

Apparently about half of them. Problem is, you'd need to hire about 10 million workers, and the costs would be about $5 trillion to build it in one month.

Train tracks are typically built in segments, from one end to the other. Heck, our new Portland streetcar line has been under construction for about a year now, and they've only laid half the track. They do it one block at a time...

Rhetoric my friend, rhetoric.

Those states are not suffering at a federal level though. Scott Walker, the new governor of Wisconsin, is so anti rail it doesnt stand a chance. Jerry Brown has been in support of HSR for decades. California has the support of both state and federal leadership.

Nobody poses a threat to the California's HSR funding. The governor, the president, California's senators, the new head of the transportation committee. They all support HSR, especially in California.


The track being built will be in use whenever the first phase finishes. Those other parts of phase one will not wait for this section to be finished. Another section will be begin construction while this part recently announced is still being constructed...and another piece...and another piece. There will be work going on all along the line at some point, in various levels of completeness.

Hey guys, major problem here.

I'm having a new home built, and the contractor insists on starting with the foundation.

WTF?

It's a multi-year project and he's starting with a useless part. I mean, I'm having carpet put in so people won't even see it! It's the concrete to nowjere!
There won't even be shelter! What use is a home if it doesn't even protect you from the rain!

I demand he either start with the roof or build the entire thing at once.

This is madness!




Seriously, how do people not understand that a project under construction is not useful until it is done....?

Because they are motivated to look for any reason to attack it.

source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MN0B.DTL&tsp=1

That's a shitty analogy and you know it.

Here's how I think and I want you to prove me wrong.

I don't know, it just seems like a gamble. What will happen is that money gets spent to build a high speed line in the Central Valley. Then, HSR dies forever because of politics and that line gets used by a handful of crappy conventional Amtrak trains which may or may not even be able to go all the way to LA. Actually, the part about going to LA seems like the biggest deal to me, after all the reason why no passenger services continue south going that way is because freight has clogged the famous railfan photo spot loopy loop route through the mountains at Tehachapi pass. A tunnel from there to Sylmar would cost 823 gazillion dollars and take 20 years because the environmentalists want to save the mountain lions or something, then fuck it all, am I right?

My question is whether or not it is worth it to tie up a couple billion on something like this, if it was at all possible to take that money and fund something elsewhere. On the East Coast where results would be immediate and would show how HSR could work, and fix the political problem.

Planning anything is a long term thing that is not for the impatient, as I have heard before. But politics change rapidly, elections every couple years and public opinion comes and goes. Attempting a megaproject in the good ol' USA of 2010 seems like an enormous waste of effort.

I think your pessimism is well-founded, but out of place in this situation, llamaorama. While yes, elections are every few years, political winds shift directions and all that jazz, planning for high speed rail is something that needed to be done decades ago, and at least is going pretty well in California. I think it's important to start with the "easier" sections first, especially given that the Central Valley is in such dire economic straits right now, the thousands of construction and engineering jobs will be a godsend for places like Fresno, Bakersfield, Corcoran, Hanford, Visalia, Tulare, etc... Obviously the biggest challenges are connecting the Central Valley with Southern California as well as the Bay Area, but plans are in place, and funding is coming together, albeit slowly.

This is NOT a waste of effort, my friend. Give it time, things will turn out. After all, who the hell thought that the L.A. Basin would have so many transit projects either being constructed or planned at this time? Patience, young grasshopper. Patience.

Aaron (Glowrock)

The main point of this line is to get from LA to SF. That sort of the genesis of why it was considered in the first place. No matter where is starts in that area, it will be pretty useless if not completed. I suppose a train from LA to Bakersfield could be cool, but not what we desire to build.

If you are complaining that it might not ever finish, it doesnt matter where it starts. An unfinished line wont achieve its top goal by far of connecting LA to SF.

Then consider it HAS to start in the central valley. Thats federal mandate.

I have no problem with it starting in the central valley. A commute from Fresno to Bakersfield where it's top speed (220 Mph) will be easily achieved, sounds pretty awesome.

Agreed, and they need a place where they will be able to let the train flex its proverbial muscles. Plus the Central Valley is probably where they are going to get the most bang for their buck, and I feel that once the immediate effects of its construction shows itself(jobs, economic surge, etc), then I think that more funding should become available a little easier.

I think it's a great analogy.

As others have mentioned, to finish the system, we need every bit of track built. The goal is not a half-finishes system, it's 100%.

California has been working on this since the 1970's. Complaining at every step of the way that "it will never happen" is easy but counterproductive.

I don't understand how the east coast is even relevant, considering California voters put up 10 billion, something no one else has done.

You also say:
"On the East Coast where results would be immediate "

False. The east coast didnt even get money because they weren't prepared. Building rail is far from immediate, it takes years of planning.

I agree that I would have preferred phase 1 to be between Bakersfield and Palmdale. But it wasn't even considered because that section isn't ready, the studies haven't been finished.

Here are the reasons why it was a good choice:

-Every portion of the system needs to be built, might as well start where you get the longest track for your dollar.
-The Valley has an unemployment rate of 18%, 26% when you include underemployment.
-Very little resistance. The counties are on board, the mayors are on board, the people are on board.
-Worst case scenario, amtrak can use it.


You say:
" line gets used by a handful of crappy conventional Amtrak trains "

These "crappy" trains are the number 5 most popular amtrak line in the country. 12 trains a day (6 each way).

100,000 people a month ride the San Joaquin.

For a place where "nobody" rides transit, that's a lot of people.

Even if HSR fails, we get:

Speed increase from 79 to 125mph
Double tracking
Dedicated ROW, no freight, no intersections

=Faster speeds, less delays, ability to schedule more trains a day.

That's pretty much the investment getting thrown at Ohio, upper New York state, georgia etc. Take conventional trains and make them better.


Note: If money allows, Amtrak/Caltrans plan on adding a round trip in 2012 and another in 2013 to the San Joaquin line, for 16 trains a day.

one state's loss is california's gain:

source: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/newr...reply&t=180558

If you wanted a starting route that would function right off the bat, it would be SD-LA. It would have the highest ridership of any other starting route, but the problem is that it would be costly and untimely and politically difficult to dig through such a highly urbanized area. There would be inevitable cost overruns. You don't want backlash or give ammo to opposition when you've barely started. And it's outside of the main SF-LA route, so sensitive Norcal would throw a political fit.



So the Central Valley is a logical place to start. It's still within the LA-SF route, (which SD-LA isn't) yet it's politically neutral with much less local opposition then you'd get in SoNorCal. And it's mostly cows (which you can move) and large swaths of lands, so you can get more rail for your time and buck, and politically, the project will give the appearance of being less expensive than it will eventually be when it gets the ends of the full route.

Its logical and its mandated by the federal government that their money be spent there. Kind of made it easy for the rail authority to decide.

Now that California just got more money, this initial segment may go to Bakersfield, thus covering the two big central valley cities.

Fresno to Bakersfield is a big deal for grade-separate double-trackage. It will improve passenger rail service no matter what ultimately gets run on the rails there.

At Start of Rail Project, a Tussle Over Where to Begin (WSJ 12/13/2010)
 

At Start of Rail Project, a Tussle Over Where to Begin

By JOSH MITCHELL
Wall Street Journal
12/13/10

"California's plan for high-speed rail service envisions bullet trains zooming from Sacramento to San Diego. To start off, the state intends to spend $4.3 billion to build a 65-mile stretch of track and stations linking two small towns in rural Central Valley.

Proponents of high speed rail say building this portion of track is a good way to launch a multiyear building program. Critics call the project the "train to nowhere" and are using it to fuel a broader attack on the Obama administration's rail strategy.

http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/i...1212192418.gif

"It defies logic and common sense to have the train start and stop in remote areas that have no hope of attaining the ridership needed to justify the cost of the project," U.S. Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D., Calif.) wrote in a Nov. 30 letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...825514428.html

^ Don't build anything north of Fresno, and instead use the money to extend the first segment's southern end to Bakersfield. Common sense, really.

I knew it.....