California High Speed Rail Thread

[CyberEric]

It's getting ugly now isn't it.

[pesto]

Really a shame. I voted for HSR and thought their management team was savvy enough to work the politics of a project this size. But I was amazed by their incompetence at every step.

If the money is lacking, then first build it right (trenches or whatever mitigation is needed) in short metro areas (say, Irvine, Riverside, High Desert to LA). Build a reputation as a good guy who works with locals and runs a tight ship, not as someone who says screw your house, screw your neighborhood, screw your high school; or,if you don't want it, we'll build from nowhere to nowhere, just to spend money.

A great time for Jerry Brown to show that he can get something done: fire the board, put a new team in charge and come up with a plan based on political realities and actual funds available.

[mfastx]

I'm sorry but this is getting even more ridiculous. Precious farmland?? How much ROW does this high speed rail line require? Less than a highway that's for damn sure.

I hate it when NIMBY's like this try to stop something that will improve the state as a whole. I wonder if people did this amount of bitching and moaning when the Interstate Highway system was built, that cut through "precious farmland" and obliterated entire blocks of neighborhoods. Where were these NIMBY's then??

[electricron]

Originally Posted by mfastx

I'm sorry but this is getting even more ridiculous. Precious farmland?? How much ROW does this high speed rail line require? Less than a highway that's for damn sure.

I hate it when NIMBY's like this try to stop something that will improve the state as a whole. I wonder if people did this amount of bitching and moaning when the Interstate Highway system was built, that cut through "precious farmland" and obliterated entire blocks of neighborhoods. Where were these NIMBY's then??

They were out in force then too. A few actually won cases in court to stop freeways. Memphis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Portland are just a few cases where they won that I'm aware of. There were probably others. There are freeways being torn down now too.

You could probably appease many farmers in the rural areas by building the HSR line above grade so farmers could reach their disconnected acres by driving under the rail corridor without having to drive a mile or two to an underpass or overpass to get to the other side of their property. But that would double the costs for the HSR line.
And it's just adds onto the costs suburbanites are demanding for below grade tracks, either in trenches or tunnels which triples the costs of even aerial tracks.

Face facts man, the cheapest solution, at grade most of the way, isn't going to get built.

Likewise, a farmer can see his crops making their way to market on the freeways, so he's got a stake in them. A farmer in a County that's not likely to get a train station can't see ever using the HSR line. It will not move his crops to market either. He has no interest at all in the HSR line.
The County Commissioners, without a rail station, can't either. You want them to approve eminent domain land purchases in their county? Good luck.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by electricron

You could probably appease many farmers in the rural areas by building the HSR line above grade so farmers could reach their disconnected acres by driving under the rail corridor without having to drive a mile or two to an underpass or overpass to get to the other side of their property. But that would double the costs for the HSR line.

F**k that. At-grade freeways don't hurt farmers... neither will HSR, as illustrated here in Spain:

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/ih...ledo-spain.jpg

And it's just adds onto the costs suburbanites are demanding for below grade tracks, either in trenches or tunnels which triples the costs of even aerial tracks.

I don't know about that, especially if the viaducts really are planned to be 80 ft high...

Trenches don't have to happen everywhere in urbanized areas. You could build soundwalls to appease neighborhood and road overpasses.

Face facts man, the cheapest solution, at grade most of the way, isn't going to get built.

ARGH, NO!!!! Why should at-grade freeways exist but at-grade high speed rail can't? That is BULLSHIT.

[202_Cyclist]

Union Pacific voices major objections to bullet-train plans
The powerful rail firm says the Central Valley route raises serious safety issues, disregards the company's property rights and would disrupt its freight operations.


Union Pacific says risks could arise as bullet trains sail past the company's freight lines. Above, a Union Pacific rail yard in Rialto. (Irfan Khan, Los Angeles Times / May 13, 2004)

By Ralph Vartabedian and Dan Weikel
Los Angeles Times
October 29, 2011

"California's bullet train project, already under attack from a giant farming operation in the state, has attracted another powerful critic — Union Pacific, the nation's largest railroad.

Union Pacific says the California High Speed Rail Authority's Central Valley route raises serious safety issues, disregards the company's property rights and would disrupt its freight operations.

The company's comments as part of an environmental review assert that the authority, which is building the $43-billion system, has made a "false conclusion" that the bullet train would not affect the freight railroad's operations during construction or later passenger service. Documents and drawings show encroachment onto the railroad's right of way in Fresno and Merced. The comments were provided to the Times by Union Pacific..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2642103.story

[JDRCRASH]

Union Pacific's safety concerns have no merit, especially when the high-speed trains would use advanced, state-of-the-art communication safety systems.

The way I see it, here's CHSR's situation:

It can either deal with a few big entities like Union Pacific so they can share their ROW...

or

It can deal with tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of homeowners/farmers/local politicians that, while not much alone, when combined together pose a FAR greater threat to the project than Union Pacific; all just so we can run this project along freeways, GUARANTEEING the acquisition, and worse, demolition, of properties.

Don't know about you guys, but I'd rather settle for the former, because making this line grade-separated the whole length just to appease the NIMBYs' typical concerns is NOT AN OPTION.

[bmfarley]

As I see it, CHSRA Trains will be traveling at 180mph and will need about 90 seconds to come to a complete stop.

There will be as many as 10-11 trains per hour in the peak hours. That is a train every 5-6 minutes on average.

90 seconds is already 25-30 percent 0f the headway. How much time would it take from the moment something enters the CHSRA ROW from UP, for the necessary protocols to be accomplished, and, an approaching HSR train to be notified to stop?

As I see it, assuming 180mph, there is already a 25-30 percent chance a CHSRA train will come upon something before it could stop.

I don't think that is acceptable. UP is right. As would any other "experienced" train operator. I would think.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

I don't think that is acceptable. UP is right. As would any other "experienced" train operator. I would think.

So the HSR trains can't reach their intended speeds, even if they don't share tracks with UP? Why not?

BTW, I don't think 10 trains every 5 minutes is even necessary. Where's the demand for that? Every 10 minutes maybe.

[donoteat]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

As I see it, CHSRA Trains will be traveling at 180mph and will need about 90 seconds to come to a complete stop.

There will be as many as 10-11 trains per hour in the peak hours. That is a train every 5-6 minutes on average.

90 seconds is already 25-30 percent 0f the headway. How much time would it take from the moment something enters the CHSRA ROW from UP, for the necessary protocols to be accomplished, and, an approaching HSR train to be notified to stop?

As I see it, assuming 180mph, there is already a 25-30 percent chance a CHSRA train will come upon something before it could stop.

I don't think that is acceptable. UP is right. As would any other "experienced" train operator. I would think.

It's not like freight trains run at random. If a train were to encroach on the HSR right of way, it would have been planned and accounted for well in advance.

As for accidents, well, accidents happen, I guess.

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

So the HSR trains can't reach their intended speeds, even if they don't share tracks with UP? Why not?

BTW, I don't think 10 trains every 5 minutes is even necessary. Where's the demand for that? Every 10 minutes maybe.

As I understand the design scenario, CHSRA is adjacent to UP. Not running on same tracks. This issue is that "if" there is an incident on UP tracks that that incident could spill over into the CHSRA right-of-way. And, UP says there would not be enough time to learn of incident, communicate it to CHSRA, before a HSR train came upon the incident. Keep in mind, there are lots of railway incident every year. Including derailments. Many are small, some are large. Some are in California.

As for frequency of trains...

The CHSRA is planning routes between several end stations, and including a range of services, and, service levels. They're also planning a certain number of trips for each during peak hours. Add up all the services in a corridor, and viola, you have 10-11 in each direction per hour. This service level is also consistent with the Business Plan and Ridership Forecast... as they should be. Call it the 2030 Build-Out Scenario. However, you would be right that this service level might not come to pass, but, they need to assume something for planning purposes.

The below help paint a picture. It was taken from a 2010 CHSRA ridership report. I have seen it elsewhere too.

[SnyderBock]

Union Pacific has been a pretty powerful opponent of passenger rail plans in Colorado/Denver. So this, does not surprise me at all. Union Pacific played that same "saftey concern" card in Denver, so Colorado legislature passed into law, a bill that would protect Union Pacific from any liability, in case of an accident between passenger and frieght rail. However, this was not good enough for Union Pacific, and they held firm in their position of opposition to the passenger rail plans. When Denver's RTD wanted to purchase unused Union Pacific ROW, Union Pacific told them it would cost $1.5 billion, despite RTD highered appraisers suggesting it would only cost ~$250 million. They basically wanted RTD (regional Transportation District), to pay for all new frieght lines and a state of the art frieght rail yard. None of which was neccessary. Union Pacific just wants these things, but doesn't want to pay for them, so they were hoping they could get the RTD to spend money intended for passenger rail service, to pay for it all. RTD didn't give in and instead used emminent domain to acquire all new ROW, for a fraction of the cost. So instead of selling to RTD, unused Union Pacific rail ROW for the line, with minimal impact on private property oweners along the corridor, RTD had to create all new ROW. Thankfully, it was mostly light inductrial properties in the path. The new ROW actually works very well, bringing the future passenger rail closer to the community. Thank you, Union Pacific!

[JDRCRASH]

Snyderblock, do you know how many properties are going to have to be acquired along the whole route if it doesn't share the UP ROW (not it's tracks)?

[hammersklavier]

...Whatever happened to things like Jersey barriers for safety?

I've noticed a pro-passenger/anti-passenger divide among the big freight operators. NS and BNSF are pro-passenger; UP and CSX anti-passenger. UP and CSX seek to drive up the cost of provisioning passenger rail as much as possible, whereas NS and BNSF are much more amenable to compromise.

Doesn't a BNSF corridor run through the CV? What's wrong with using it? Perhaps a blended BNSF/CA-99 approach would be able to minimize takings (where HSR would predominantly follow the BNSF tracks but switch over to CA-99 where the BNSF ROW is too narrow) in the event UP proves unduly recalcitrant? I do recall BNSF being much more supportive of this project than UP...

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

So instead of selling to RTD, unused Union Pacific rail ROW for the line, with minimal impact on private property oweners along the corridor, RTD had to create all new ROW. Thankfully, it was mostly light inductrial properties in the path. The new ROW actually works very well, bringing the future passenger rail closer to the community. Thank you, Union Pacific!

The irony is that, IIRC, the new ROW lies directly to the south of Union Pacific's tracks, severing all of that industrial-zoned land from future UP freight connections.

The Red Line South project is facing a similar issue in Chicago, where an UP corridor has been identified as the preferred alignment. Unfortunately, since the corridor runs through entirely residential neighborhoods, many people who live along the tracks will need to lose their homes to make way for the new CTA alignment.

Union Pacific isn't entirely recalcitrant, though. They own and operate 3 of the busiest commuter lines in Chicago and they were open to the possibility of a fourth commuter line on the same corridor proposed for the Red Line. They've also been fairly supportive of extensions to the three existing lines. The only thing they won't do is sell off their ROW to another party that can deny them access.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Union Pacific isn't entirely recalcitrant, though. They own and operate 3 of the busiest commuter lines in Chicago and they were open to the possibility of a fourth commuter line on the same corridor proposed for the Red Line. They've also been fairly supportive of extensions to the three existing lines. The only thing they won't do is sell off their ROW to another party that can deny them access.

I can't help but wonder if UP says, "but that's Chicago, where they need transit, so we'll lay off".

[202_Cyclist]

hammersklavier:

I've noticed a pro-passenger/anti-passenger divide among the big freight operators. NS and BNSF are pro-passenger; UP and CSX anti-passenger. UP and CSX seek to drive up the cost of provisioning passenger rail as much as possible, whereas NS and BNSF are much more amenable to compromise.

This is largely correct. I attended a recent event about financing transportation and creating jobs at the Bipartisan Policy Center in DC. Matt Rose, CEO of Burlington Northern was one of the panelists. He certainly agreed that the property rights of the freight rail operators need to be respected and he noted that they've paid property taxes on the right-of-ways that they own. That said, however, he was not hostile to high speed rail.

Matt Rose's remarks on the subject begins at about 30 minutes.

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/even...ing-infrastruc

[202_Cyclist]

I support the proposed high speed rail project but it's probably time to reassess what segment gets built first with these new cost estimates. As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with pesto that perhaps the CA High Speed Rail Authority should focus on LA-San Diego or upgrading the Capital Corridor segment between Sacramento and San Jose. I think the Surfliner route has Amtrak's second-highest ridership and the Capital Corridor route has either the third or fourth highest ridership. Improving either of these routes to 120-150 mph service would have tremendous value regardless of whether the entire statewide system is completed. Either of these investments will still improve mobility, get cars off the road, and create jobs.

Cost projection for California bullet train jumps to nearly $100 billion

October 31, 2011
Ralph Vartabedian
Los Angeles Times

"California's bullet train will cost an estimated $98.5 billion to build over the next 20 years, an amount far higher than any previous projection, according to a business plan scheduled to be unveiled Tuesday.

The estimate includes possible future inflation that will drive up the cost of the line, which would send trains at up to 220 mph from Southern California to the Bay Area.

The cost growth results in large part from a major revision in the construction schedule. In the past, the state assumed the system would be completed by 2020 but now assumes construction would be finished in 2033. That stretched-out schedule and an assumption that future inflation would average 3% per year are two key reasons the overall estimated cost of the system almost doubled in the new business plan..."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...log+(L.A.+Now)

[M II A II R II K]

California's bullet train gamble begins: $9 billion now on the line


Read More: http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...il/ci_19229856

California's top leaders weighing the fate of the $45 billion high-speed train line will finally get the crucial details they need Tuesday to decide once and for all: Is it time to kill the project or empty the bank account to start building the sleek railroad with no guarantees there will be enough money to run a single bullet train?

Quitting now would force the state to return a massive federal grant if they scrap the rail line. But launching the project in the sparsely populated Central Valley, as is now planned, could mean spending an astonishing $9 billion in taxpayer funds to build only enough track to serve as a brief shortcut for a few thousand Amtrak riders.

And with a deadline looming to start construction by this time next year or lose $2.2 billion in federal funding, the stakes couldn't be higher. "It's a very tough decision. If you go down this path (and build), you're committing the state to an unknown amount of money," said Elizabeth Alexis, a leading analyst on the project with Palo Alto-based Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design.

.....

[M II A II R II K]

California high-speed rail will try to turn corner with new business plan


Read More: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/31/401...#ixzz1cSvDxVWL

For California's high-speed rail project, it's been an inauspicious autumn. Disparaged for its lack of public outreach, the California High-Speed Rail Authority hired a new deputy director for communications and public policy, Lance Simmens, who introduced himself to Kings County residents – and YouTube viewers everywhere – by falling asleep at a public meeting. The authority board delayed releasing its much-awaited business plan and canceled luncheons with the Sacramento Press Club. Twice.

When it tried to find a replacement for powerhouse public relations company Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide – which itself came under fire and is quitting its $9 million contract – the authority fumbled that, too, canceling the bid process and starting over. But two months after Gov. Jerry Brown came out in support of the project and suggested that his administration could help rail officials "get their act together," the authority contends it has. It will release a business plan Tuesday, including updated ridership and cost estimates.

.....