California High Speed Rail Thread

[Sonofsoma]

MICHAEL BARONE: CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL 'INSANE'

..."I become more appalled the more I learn about it. The latest report of the state Legislative Analyst’s Office makes clear that this is crazy"...

Full article: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...#ixzz1OY9fbX2J

Legislative Analyst’s Report: http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/t...il_051011.aspx

[northbay]

^ that report has been out for almost a month now.

its flawed and has been criticized by the federal and much of the state government:

http://www.cahsrblog.com/2011/05/leg...ker-treatment/

http://www.cahsrblog.com/2011/05/fed...2012-deadline/

[202_Cyclist]

High-speed rail would go through city along I-15

By DAVID GARRICK
June 13, 2011
North County Times


"A high-speed rail line proposed for California would travel through Escondido along Interstate 15 instead of of Centre City Parkway to avoid dividing the city and demolishing dozens of houses and businesses, state officials said Thursday.



Running the line along the freeway means the Escondido station ---- one of only two stations planned for San Diego County ---- would be farther from downtown and the Sprinter station than state officials would prefer.

During a public workshop Thursday at Escondido's arts center, state officials displayed a large map showing that the proposed site of Escondido's 1,400-foot-long, rectangular station would be just east of the freeway and extend north and south from Washington Avenue..."

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/es...d9184e18b.html

[202_Cyclist]

Madera Co. board favors Hwy. 99 rail route

By Tim Sheehan
The Fresno Bee
6/21/2011

"Madera County supervisors cast their lot Tuesday for a high-speed rail route along the Union Pacific rail line and Highway 99 between Fresno and Merced as the least disruptive for county farmers..."


Image courtesy of the Fresno Bee.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/06/21/...rs-hwy-99.html

[JDRCRASH]

^ A straighter and quicker route that ALSO avoids more NIMBYs? Sounds good to me.

[Gordo]

^It doesn't avoid NIMBYs, because Union Pacific is the biggest NIMBY of all - and the only one protected by federal-level protection from eminent domain. That vote is incredibly worrisome, as it's most likely just a tactic to try and kill the project again, but without anyone having to come out and say that's what they're trying to do.

[Political_R]

Using the Hwy 99 route, you would run next to peoples homes right next to the ROW and cut right through the towns of Madera and Cowchilla. UPs tracks are almost a quarter mile from the Highway. It would run along the Highway outside of those two cities though. BNSF tracks completely avoid the larger towns but it is somewhat of a diversion. If the farm bureau wants a Highway 99 route, talk to UP first. They have already given the Authority the poilte version of the bird so to speak.

[JDRCRASH]

We shouldn't always bow to UP's stupidity. They block almost ANYTHING that might share their ROW.

[electricron]

Take another, a second, look at the map. Remember they're building 200 mph HSR. Will there be any train stations between Merced and Fresno that any HSR train will ever stop at? It's my belief the BNSF corridor should allow higher speeds than the UP, if only due to less density adjacent to it. If they're were planning on building 80 mph or 110 mph HSR, I can see the logic using the UP corridor. But not with 200+ mph trains.

[202_Cyclist]

Interesting article but sprawl is market-driven only if we ignore: 1) the hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgage tax deductions given to homeowners each year, 2) the substantial subsidies for driving and artificially cheap gas, 3) subsidized infrastucture (electricity grid, fiber optic, water/sewer). 4) restrictive zoning that prevents a range of housing choices and more housing in cities and inner suburbs, and 5) the way we fund schools via property taxes, ensuring wealthy suburbs have the best schools. Other than all of this, yes, sprawl is a market-driven choice made independently by people.


Who Will Ride an Alternative to 'Market-Driven Sprawl'?

By SAQIB RAHIM
July 19, 2011
NY Times

"SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Where Highway 99 meets the state capital here, a motorist has choices. He can pivot toward the San Francisco Bay, veer inland to the Nevada border, or ride the flatlands south toward Los Angeles.

It's an important junction for any California driver -- and, in a sense, a symbol of California's climate choices.

The state already has plans to widen Highway 99 to deal with increased traffic in the coming decades. But boosters of high-speed rail for the state say no amount of road expansion will be able to serve a larger population.."

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/07...ive-65294.html

[202_Cyclist]

Sen. Rubio backs rail along Hwy. 99


By Lewis Griswold
Fresno Bee
7/20/2011

"A South Valley state senator is throwing his support behind a Highway 99 alignment for high-speed rail tracks from Fresno to Bakersfield.

A route that includes the Union Pacific Railroad corridor "has the fewest impacts to homeowners, farmers and Central Valley communities," Sen. Michael Rubio, D-Bakersfield, wrote in a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood..."

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/07/20/...along-hwy.html

[jg6544]

Question for Mr. Barone: If anyone suggested building a new freeway parallel to the 5 or building new airports in L.A. and the Bay Area because the 5 corridor, SFO, and LAX are overcrowded, would anyone stop to ask how much money they'd make? No. CA is building high-speed rail because we need a third transportation mode between San Diego and Sacramento.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Gordo

^It doesn't avoid NIMBYs, because Union Pacific is the biggest NIMBY of all - and the only one protected by federal-level protection from eminent domain. That vote is incredibly worrisome, as it's most likely just a tactic to try and kill the project again, but without anyone having to come out and say that's what they're trying to do.

Apart from Madera, and 2 or 3 other hamlets along the route, the state can very cheaply seize a swath of land adjacent to UP's ROW. I can't speak for California specifically, but agricultural land is mad cheap, especially if you're expanding an existing corridor (you're not dividing any farms, just making them slightly smaller).

The environmental impact of using an existing corridor is also much lower, which saves money on mitigation/remediation projects.

However, in Madera, the line should be built on an elevated structure inside of UP's ROW.

The Supreme Court has ruled that railroads are protected from eminent domain, but the purpose of this is to prevent local governments from breaking the continuity of a rail line that they don't like. As long as the seizure of property doesn't impede Union Pacific's operations in any meaningful way, I doubt UP's legal challenge would hold up in court. At any rate, the Authority needs to hire some lawyers to look into the relevant statutes and case law. A few million in legal fees could save a few hundred million in land acquisition costs and increased construction costs.

[202_Cyclist]

Council concerned east side station would wipe out downtown

By Mark Powell
Gilroy Dispatch
7/21/2011

"One question was prevalent during the Gilroy City Council's first look at a $200,000 visioning project meant to examine two possible high-speed rail station locations in Gilroy: Would a station built east of U.S. Highway 101 destroy downtown?


Image courtesy of the Gilroy Distpatch.

The project, run by city-hired Berkeley-based Design, Community and Environment, didn't offer any predictions. Council members, however, some smarting from the update's lack of depth, gave their own answers during Tuesday night's report at City Hall..."

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/2...e-out-downtown

[SPIREINTHEHOLE!]

Slower high-speed rail encouraged by officials

July 27, 2011|By Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer

Regional transportation officials plan to push for a scaled-back high-speed rail system on the Peninsula that also would accommodate a modernized Caltrain with a minimum of new construction.

"We see this as the way forward to save this project," said John Grubb, a senior vice president of the Bay Area Council, a pro-business advocacy group.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-07-2...ns-rail-system

Support growing for ‘blended’ rail

August 01, 2011, 03:30 AM By Bill Silverfarb Daily Journal staff

A plan to have Caltrain share its tracks with high-speed rail trains is gaining steam as the lawmaker who authored the bond measure to fund the statewide system is now on board with the idea, depending on a capacity study the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board is set to release later this month.

While that plan may be gaining favor, Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, said the California High-Speed Rail Authority, however, needs to present a feasible business plan for the project come October or face calls of ditching it outright.

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articl...2%80%99%20rail

Am I being overly optimistic to think this could actually be good news. It would only affect this 50-mile segment and might possible stave off much of the opposition in the peninsula (Particularly the nimby townships).

[gtbassett]

^Those are terrible proposals.

We must not let people whose real interest is to destroy any future HSR programs in the US implement half-assed policies in our own HSR system. Slowing it down is absolutely ridiculously stupid.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

agreed 100% gtbassett

[glowrock]

It's stupid, but I wonder how much slower it will REALLY be given that it's only the last 50 miles or so of the system. What will the slowdown be in terms of minutes added to a trip? If it's only 5-10 minutes, is it really a big deal, if it shuts the freaking NIMBYs up?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Apart from Madera, and 2 or 3 other hamlets along the route, the state can very cheaply seize a swath of land adjacent to UP's ROW. I can't speak for California specifically, but agricultural land is mad cheap, especially if you're expanding an existing corridor (you're not dividing any farms, just making them slightly smaller).
...

I don't know how wide it would need to be, but for a 50-foot ROW, it'd be about 6-7 acres of land per linear mile. Good agricultural land can run anywhere from $3,000/acre to $12,000/acre. So a round-number estimate is maybe $60,000/mile in acquisition. In some locations, you might have to rework dirt access roads, too, but that probably wouldn't much more than double the cost of whatever stretches needed that. Obviously a 100-ft ROW would double the land cost. The survey and contract work could add a fair bit to that, too, but it wouldn't double it (at least not in most places).

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by glowrock

It's stupid, but I wonder how much slower it will REALLY be given that it's only the last 50 miles or so of the system. What will the slowdown be in terms of minutes added to a trip? If it's only 5-10 minutes, is it really a big deal, if it shuts the freaking NIMBYs up?

Aaron (Glowrock)

You can't think of it as a good faith argument, unless they're willing to put something legally binding in writing. As it exists now, this "solution" would require a new statewide proposition to pass, as the time from LA-SF would exceed that required by proposition 1A. These folks know that, and their hope is that a new proposition could be tailored in a way to fail, or upon passage, invalidate proposition 1A. The groups that have actually been the most adamant about filing lawsuits and trying to block the project at every turn (those from Menlo Park, Atherton, and some groups from Palo Alto) have not even declared to be supportive of this plan, so I'm not sure what the point would be of even considering it.