California High Speed Rail Thread

[Political_R]

I am glad some people here have a brain on why to start in the Valley I want this project to get started and hopefully, more federal funds will come to continue extending the legs. Once Sylmar and San Jose are reached, service could begin since Metrolink and Caltrain own those respective ROWs. The opposition has run out of new additions to their side and I think it is time to get this construction going. Now will Lowenthal step aside and get out of the way, along with Union Pacific?

[fieldsofdreams]

Once Sylmar and San Jose are reached, service could begin since Metrolink and Caltrain own those respective ROWs. The opposition has run out of new additions to their side and I think it is time to get this construction going. Now will Lowenthal step aside and get out of the way, along with Union Pacific?

Exactly. When the HSR finally reaches the Bay Area, it will mean a quicker, more efficient commuter alternative to the current Caltrain services since it is expected to stop even less than Caltrain's Baby Bullet services now. However, I'm wondering: who will be the primary operator of the trains: Amtrak California, Amtrak national, or other agency? I've only heard of the HSR project, not who will eventually be the lead agency for the service.

[Beta_Magellan]

I believe the idea is to contract operation out to a group with actual experience running high-speed trains like SNCF or SJ (although I wouldn’t be surprised if Amtrak put in a bid to operate them as well—IIRC they were going to bid as the operator in Florida).

[fieldsofdreams]

I believe the idea is to contract operation out to a group with actual experience running high-speed trains like SNCF or SJ (although I wouldn’t be surprised if Amtrak put in a bid to operate them as well—IIRC they were going to bid as the operator in Florida).

Nah, I think Amtrak California will operate the service, although the contracted operation will be in cooperation with Amtrak California since the state has its own network in collaboration with Caltrans. But I'm interested to see who will actually operate the train services, maintenance, daily operations, and other essential services for the whole HSR project. If Deutsche Bahn (DB) is to be hired as a contractor of the service, the it would be great since they have a lot of experience operating high-speed intercity trains in Germany...

[Beta_Magellan]

CAHSR is separate from Caltrans (although there’s been talk of merging them), and Amtrak California currently has no role in the project., so I think that’s pretty unlikely.

[Gordo]

The CHSRA is just the agency responsible for building the system, and currently has no connection with Caltrans or Amtrak California. Amtrak California is welcome to bid on operations and maintenance, but unless there's some kind of backroom deal I don't see them getting it. They're at a huge disadvantage compared to the other folks that have shown interest (SNCF, JR, Virgin, Alstom, Bombardier) because they have no current involvement with a system similar to that being planned for California.

My hope is still that we have multiple operators on the system (similar to the British setup or the American air travel setup), which is still alive and well as an idea. My hope is that we'll also have multiple maintenance contractors, perhaps maintaining different geographic portions of the system, just to keep some competition alive. Without that, we really risk falling into the situation that we have now with BART, where there is a very entrenched transit-industrial complex and unsurprisingly, costs continue to skyrocket.

[fflint]

A quick aside: BART is profitable--it's the only local transit agency with a budget surplus.

I doubt Amtrak will play a role in CAHSR--the foreign operators already know how to run a true high speed railroad. Amtrak does not.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by fflint

A quick aside: BART is profitable--it's the only local transit agency with a budget surplus.

Budget surplus does not equal profitable. BART has a dedicated sales tax for operations, something the CHSRA does not and will not have the luxury of having.

California's high speed rail system is expected to turn an actual operating profit (as most HSR systems do), something BART has never done nor intended to do. The one extension that was originally projected to turn an operating profit was the Millbrae extension, and we all know how that turned out. I don't have an issue with BART's operating cost structure as much as the fact that many decisions over the years have created a contractor lock-in, which has driven up the cost of extensions and capital expenditures considerably (both new and replacement capital expenditures), when you compare against similar projects elsewhere. I'd prefer that be avoided for CHSRA by either a very competitive setup with multiple firms for all types of work OR an entirely in-house government owned/operated setup - I don't want a setup where there is really only one contractor, with a lapdog agency doling out the funds.

[fieldsofdreams]

I think then that CA's HSR network will be operated by a foreign entity contracted by the State of California, Amtrak California, or Caltrans, is that what I'm looking at? I mean, having a foreign entity with a lot of HSR experience that will run the system will be a great idea since they've got the technical know-how of running the high-speed rail line that will pass by the Central Valley. But, my concern is, what will be the ownership be like since I really have no idea of the ownership split in this process?

It seems to me that the HSR will have a California-based maintenance crew, but it will have a foreign company contracted by the State (somehow) to oversee many important operations for the service to run properly. I think, though, that Amtrak should not operate this new service because of historical issues with the train company; rather, it shall be a foreign company in conjunction with the State (akin to a private-public partnership) that would allow the HSR to succeed.

[Roadcruiser1]

The only other companies that I can think of is Union Pacific, and BNSF I don't know if they want to do it though.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

The only other companies that I can think of is Union Pacific, and BNSF I don't know if they want to do it though.

Four of the top 5 US rail companies: UP, BNSF, CSX, and NS have the inhouse ability to build rail very quickly. Sometime watch any of those four put down rail on a wide ROW that they own- when they are serious.

Say 50 to 100 land movers and dozers. 24 hour lighting. Workers working 3 days on and 3 days off 12 hour days. Have them lay a 'work line' over which they run track laying trains, ballast trains, tie insertion trains. The line would become a 110 mph line with a reduced but not eliminated number of grade crossings.

Put the first high speed line down next to it, super elevating the track as necessary while running passenger trains 4 or 6 times per day on the 110 track off of which you build the high speed rail line. Build a good dirt road on the outside fence side of the bullet train line and work there with trucks while placing massive concrete supports from cranes on rail cars on the 110 mph track between say 900p and 5a. Work the combined operation 24x7.

This is, of course, politically incorrect, but the method of building is a modification of how rail lines were built in the 1860s-1870s, where the first line was laid as fast as 10 or even 16 miles per day (of course it was rickity and repair (upgrade) trains and crews had a lot of work left to do).

We just have to have the national will. Right now, we have only the political dream which is.................well...............political. Of course, we are going to be getting a little hungry in the next few years, and, people will develope that 'national will.'.

[Roadcruiser1]

Actually I had done some reading BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway) is actually extremely interested in high speed rail unlike most other railroad companies. Who knows maybe BNSF might become the high speed railroad pioneer of the United States. They might have a massive stake in high speed rail for the entire continental United States in the future. In fact I won't find it shocking if BNSF made more money then Amtrak, because high speed rail might be more reliable for them, and in the end the company might become extremely rich in doing it.

Another company interested in high speed rail, and would have a large stake in it also would be NS (Norfolk Southern) which also sees a massive potential in it like BNSF. CSX, and UP (Union Pacific) aren't interested in high speed rail, but it won't matter, because if you combine Norfolk Southern Eastern Seaboard ROW with BNSF ROW you would actually have ROW from the Eastern to the Western Seaboard, and thus if they both work together, and electrify all existing ROW's for high speed rail you would have continental high speed rail.

[hammersklavier]

Sounds good in theory...but remember those ROWs and easements which exist can rarely (although not never) be used for super-110 mph HSR, due to various issues, mostly related to acceptable cants and curvature. 110 mph does tend to be a global average for intercity passenger running on conventional tracks.

OTOH with only four national rail operators an en masse electrification campaign is not out of the realm of possibility. Remember to secure the raw materials needed for diesel these companies also operate some of the biggest oil companies you've never heard of and they've got to be feeling the fuel prices pinch, too.

[Nexis4Jersey]

BNSF , NS , and CN and several smaller freight companies don't have any issues with commuter or HSR in the ROW as long as you separate the tracks or add tracks they don't mind. Its a win / win for both the Transit and Freight company in the Capacity dept...

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

BNSF , NS , and CN and several smaller freight companies don't have any issues with commuter or HSR in the ROW as long as you separate the tracks or add tracks they don't mind. Its a win / win for both the Transit and Freight company in the Capacity dept...

This is why track sharing with freight isn't a good idea. Too many lawsuits and problems. It's less expensive, but in the long run separation is what's best.

[Wizened Variations]

IMO, the basic question- aside from questioning the mega-millions that are spent before dirt is turned over- is how should the lines be built.

The US, in general, has lost it's ability to visualize massive transportation projects. Often, the 'public' primarily is concerned with how construction will interfere with traffic patterns, what noise the construction will generate, what effects the construction will have on property values, etc. This tends to produce 'micro-management' and enables property developers, among others, to have too much influence on ROW, station location, and, station design

This, in turn, greatly affects how projects are built out. Construction is done only during daylight hours, with small pieces of equipment (I am continually surprised how many small backhoes are used in Denver's Fastrack project, for example) Projects become localized, with too much time (cost) and material spent on working on, say, a single flyover.

In Denver, the Eagle Consortium is a good first step towards constructing large public transit projects, but, efforts still are caught up from the mediocre design they inherited when they won the job bid. I suspect that despite their internal analyses (which IMO must be far better than the studies given to them by RTD) finding large style railway BUILDERS with a proven track record, outside of the major freight railroads themselves, is proving difficult. This also drives up the price, and, forces still more real estate developer and political involvement.

When I was a little kid (and I am not young now) I remember seeing interstates being built in the early '60s. Construction would literally go on for miles between cities with hour long traffic slow downs for earthmovers to cross packed dirt paths across two lane roads. (One Sunday or holiday, I remember traveling across Nevada by car and my father telling me that there was a line of parked construction equipment a half a mile long.)

So for High Speed Rail to be built in a cost efficient manner, at least two changes have to occurr:

1st) The US has to rebuild it's network of road and rail construction companies. The network of contractors and subcontractors needs to become robust. Regretably, this can only happen by actually building projects, as the network has to be built on experience, not media or government agency hype.

2nd) The public has to accept the need to change how we transport ourselves. This can only occurr through a sharp increase in the price of petroleum in real dollars, a significant decrease in the wealth of the bottom 70-80% of the population, or a combination of both.

Until that time, the major expense will not be in construction, but, will continue to be in 'studies'. and in the political payoffs those studies entail. These studies are 'cheap' in the sense that concrete and steel cost more, but, add immeasurably to the final cost of build out.

I am confident these changes will come soon.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

IMO, the basic question- aside from questioning the mega-millions that are spent before dirt is turned over- is how should the lines be built.

The US, in general, has lost it's ability to visualize massive transportation projects. Often, the 'public' primarily is concerned with how construction will interfere with traffic patterns, what noise the construction will generate, what effects the construction will have on property values, etc. This tends to produce 'micro-management' and enables property developers, among others, to have too much influence on ROW, station location, and, station design

This, in turn, greatly affects how projects are built out. Construction is done only during daylight hours, with small pieces of equipment (I am continually surprised how many small backhoes are used in Denver's Fastrack project, for example) Projects become localized, with too much time (cost) and material spent on working on, say, a single flyover.

In Denver, the Eagle Consortium is a good first step towards constructing large public transit projects, but, efforts still are caught up from the mediocre design they inherited when they won the job bid. I suspect that despite their internal analyses (which IMO must be far better than the studies given to them by RTD) finding large style railway BUILDERS with a proven track record, outside of the major freight railroads themselves, is proving difficult. This also drives up the price, and, forces still more real estate developer and political involvement.

When I was a little kid (and I am not young now) I remember seeing interstates being built in the early '60s. Construction would literally go on for miles between cities with hour long traffic slow downs for earthmovers to cross packed dirt paths across two lane roads. (One Sunday or holiday, I remember traveling across Nevada by car and my father telling me that there was a line of parked construction equipment a half a mile long.)

So for High Speed Rail to be built in a cost efficient manner, at least two changes have to occurr:

1st) The US has to rebuild it's network of road and rail construction companies. The network of contractors and subcontractors needs to become robust. Regretably, this can only happen by actually building projects, as the network has to be built on experience, not media or government agency hype.

2nd) The public has to accept the need to change how we transport ourselves. This can only occurr through a sharp increase in the price of petroleum in real dollars, a significant decrease in the wealth of the bottom 70-80% of the population, or a combination of both.

Until that time, the major expense will not be in construction, but, will continue to be in 'studies'. and in the political payoffs those studies entail. These studies are 'cheap' in the sense that concrete and steel cost more, but, add immeasurably to the final cost of build out.

I am confident these changes will come soon.

I can't wait for there to be 200+ million poor people in the United States so we can fulfill your negative fantasies, Wizened Variations. I mean, why not have a tiny percentage of wealthy and a massive majority of poor people who are completely reliant upon mass transit to get around? Cars too expensive? Awesome! Gas at $8/gallon? Fantastic! Now one question for you: What about those things that are MADE from petroleum? What about the transportation of said goods? No worries, the vast majority of Americans couldn't afford even the basics of life in your fantasy world!

I'm sorry, but the era of massive government-funded projects are gone, at least the massive ones like the interstate highway system and the like. Oh yes, and the railroads. How the hell do you think they were built? Massive amounts of what more or less was slave labor! You want to go back to those conditions? Perhaps you do. Maybe you just want to see Chinese-style "We build it, we bulldoze everything, you move or you literally die" kind of ROW acquisition. Is that what you want?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Wizened Variations]

Pretty well defines the next 20 years. Not 200 million poor, IMO, maybe 150 million whose worth =s the top 400-500 fortunes.

Say! Isn't that the way it is now?

Make food stamps hard to get, reduce unemployment to 26 weeks, clamp down on medicade and disability and we're about there.

We may have a couple of horrid choices: do we want people to work while the presses are printing dollars at light speed, or we we run the printing presses ad nauseum and have people stay at home? If we want people to work, we, as a Nation, are going to have to get people to work either for government largess they recieve or for less money and benefits.

The accelerating rate of change is not necessarily going to be about consuming fancy gadjets, i.e., whether we are in front a computer screen or a TV screen we still have to eat. Jobs, IMO, will continue to 'downgrade' in quality with a progressively greater percentage of families and singles doubling and even tripling up, as people live now in too much of the world.

This, to me, means that our getting the basics: food, shelter, public safety, and, transportation, will change towards less real cost.

Transportation projects, for example, might be built with tent cities of unemployed people following the work, waiting for THAT job (occurred during the early 1930s) Being expected to work 12 hours per day- if you are lucky enough to get a job- may become more accepted (Henry Ford's workers got the first 8 hour day).

I only cast this out here to make the point that while this does not HAVE to happen, we must increasingly plan for the possibility that it will. In the transportation arena, how can we move more people at a lower cost? How do we account for infrastructural expense in this cost, i.e., what does our driving a car on a government built road, riding a bus on that road, taking a light rail, or a commuter line actually cost? How do we leave ROW to expand rapidly, if we must?

Get us truly motivated and projects like putting HSR in the San Joaquin Valley will be duck soup. Things get bad enough, and we will bulldoze straight through those $1 million house + suburbs and replace the freeway system in a decade.

However, as a pessimist, I believe we will steadily become poorer, debate endlessly, and wake up some day saying, "We did nothing..."

Pass the Lee and Parrins, I am eating a NY strip.

[Beta_Magellan]

Wizened, if everyone gets a lot poorer in the future our intercity transportation problems are solved by people forgoing intercity travel, not by building new infrastructure.

Can we get back on topic and leave prophecy to the prophets?

[202_Cyclist]

Central Valley start for California high-speed rail proves a political challenge

By David Siders
Sacramento Bee
Jun. 5, 2011

"FRESNO – The plan for high-speed rail in California is to start on the Fresno side of the San Joaquin River, between Bakersfield and Chowchilla, and go until the money runs out.

The Central Valley, for many reasons, is a practical place to begin. The land is broad and flat and relatively inexpensive, and the federal government, which is contributing billions of dollars, requires it.

The first section will one day form the spine of a system connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco, officials say. But there is no money guaranteed to build the rest, and the initial tracks, through towns like Wasco and Madera, are conspicuously far from where most people live..."

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/05/367...ate%20Politics