Passenger Trains > CA HSR - What's next?

California’s population will continue to grow exponentially into this century with most of the growth occurring in the Central Valley and Inland Empire regions.  Both the LA Basin and Bay Area are already heavily built offering little room for population growth other than tearing down and going up. Likewise, the ability to add new transportation corridors, via expanded freeways, rail lines etc, is very difficult if not impossible in the urban areas.    

Prop 1A was an attempt to provide a statewide funded solution that would serve as a backbone for future local integrated transit solutions. Inevitably with any large public project, everybody wants a part of the trough including municipalities, property owners, residents, special interests, and lawyers.   Since passage of the proposition, the project has been delayed and costs continued to soar resulting in a cry to kill the project. 

Alternatives will face the same issues of oversight, costs, nimbyism and route selection from the various interests.  No doubt, the cycle will continue...only the teams will change sides. 

As a state, we have to efficiently move more people in the future..   Doing nothing will result in 24 hr highway gridlock for following generations until harder and more expensive solutions are implemented.    

The need for statewide transit solutions remains as it did when Prop 1A passed...now only farther down the road after more consultants, studies, hearings etc.
 
 

KMiddlebrook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> California’s population will continue to grow
> exponentially into this century with most of the
> growth occurring in the Central Valley and Inland
> Empire regions.  

Not true.   The population of California is NOT growing exponentially  -- unless you are using a negative 
exponent.   The population is growing, but at a LESS THAN LINEAR rate.

The growth in 2014 was 350,000 residents
The growth in 2015 was 320,000 residents
The growth in 2016 was 260,000 residents
The growth in 2017 was 190,000 residents
The growth in 2018 was 160,000 residents

KMiddlebrook Wrote:
>CA HSR - What's next?

 ...more consultants, studies, and hearings etc. - naturally.

/Mitch
 
 

Believe it or not, CHSR only need a friendly President and Congress to provide 1:3 matching fund to what California already spent of its own money to greatly accelerate the construction timeline, and thus reduce the project cost due to less inflation effect. 

More taxpayer $ going down the rabbit hole (with apologies to Bugs).

Next? The signing of myriad contracts and agreements with myriad entities and organizations followed by concomitant "transiting" of cash from local, municipal, county, city, state and federal treasuries.
That's the sole purpose of contemporary "transit" projects - "transiting" cash.
Thus far, by that measure, Cal HSR has been a phenomenal success.

The US has not taken aggressive steps toward central planning, and probably shouldn't.  The government would likely end up outsourcing it to real estate developers, oil companies, coal companies, etc with all the mess that creates. And has created since the 1940s.

The French started with the premise that few French people would be far from a passenger railroad or intercity bus. Like the Austrians and the Swiss, even rural hermits living in a cave would have the opportunity to live without a car if they chose. And the auto would pay its way with a $6 gasoline tax, tolls on most major highways, and taxes on larger engines. Short haul airline flights would be limited, and rail service would be improved. The TGV would be a backbone service. That social compact has taken some hits as many farmers and rural residents have violently opposed any more fuel tax hikes.

People in California are not going to pay a $3 gasoline tax, much less a $6 tax.

(Even the Tennessee Valley Authority thumbed its nose at the President today.  Mr Trump had directed TVA to continue buying coal from his buddy Murray.  TVA looked at the numbers, and decided that $350 million more cost was more than it could impose on its rate payers. Even DJT's own appointees to the board voted against coal and modernizing two old plants.)

will74205 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Believe it or not, CHSR only need a friendly
> President and Congress to provide 1:3 matching
> fund to what California already spent of its own
> money to greatly accelerate the construction
> timeline, and thus reduce the project cost due to
> less inflation effect.

We already had that in 2008 AND 2012. CA HSR was supposed to be "shovel ready." Try again..

Fresno construction didn't start until that President became a lame duck. It seems like the sole purpose was to show "progress" to meet a deadline to get federal money. If Newsom is willing to give up that money, that clears the air a little bit.

You advocacy is meaningless unless you tell us there have been fundamental changes in how CA HSR Authority manages the project. Otherwise, same old B.S. I've been asking for a meaning regime change for a while, so make that come true, please.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> will74205 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Believe it or not, CHSR only need a friendly
> > President and Congress to provide 1:3 matching
> > fund to what California already spent of its
> own
> > money to greatly accelerate the construction
> > timeline, and thus reduce the project cost due
> to
> > less inflation effect.
>
> We already had that in 2008 AND 2012. CA HSR was
> supposed to be "shovel ready." Try again..
>
> Fresno construction didn't start until that
> President became a lame duck. It seems like the
> sole purpose was to show "progress" to meet a
> deadline to get federal money. If Newsom is
> willing to give up that money, that clears the air
> a little bit.
>
> You advocacy is meaningless unless you tell us
> there have been fundamental changes in how CA HSR
> Authority manages the project. Otherwise, same old
> B.S. I've been asking for a meaning regime change
> for a while, so make that come true, please.

@cchan006 
The proposition was passed in Nov 2008, and after that lawsuits prevented the bond money from being used until 2012. So it was not CHSRA not wanting to start detail design and construction, it was prevented to do so.

I think you like to blame CHSRA but refuse to acknowledge other circumstances has a much bigger effect in delaying the project and thus led to cost increase, and likes to throw "incompetence" and "corruption" as catch-all words that explain everything, while their effect most likely to be less than you make them ought to be.

I think CHSRA managed the project the best it can, giving the circumstances. The problem I had with CHSRA was that they not move forward fast enough and give-in too easily on cities expensive demands. But I found most of their design choices have merits. 
 

Has the CA governor or anyone else clarified/suggested what the HSR train service offering will be when the Merced - Bakersfield track construction is complete? Will the initial "HSR" offering be Amtrak's current slate of San Joaquins with 4 daily Bakersfield - Oakland train pairs and 2 daily Bakersfield - Sacramento train pairs? Diesel powered, I'm guessing? And when is Bakersfield - Merced construction to be completed? Thanks.

will california's future plans for spending leave them enough money to construct and operate an hsr system?

66

JPB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will the initial
> "HSR" offering be Amtrak's current slate of San
> Joaquins with 4 daily Bakersfield - Oakland train
> pairs and 2 daily Bakersfield - Sacramento train
> pairs?

Hopefully, they will have money left to buy some old fire service ladder trucks to serve as stations at Wasco and Corcoran: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/68/f0/2f/68f02f238b0a758fdfecd4bfcb62a094--ladders-fire-trucks.jpg

TAW

Just once I'd like to hear a California politician say that whatever money in still in hand and unspent should be returned to its rightful owners -- the taxpayers.

-John

jcaestecker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just once I'd like to hear a California politician
> say that whatever money in still in hand and
> unspent should be returned to its rightful owners
> -- the taxpayers.
>
> -John

If California is anything like the federal system, the vast amount of income taxes collected come from the wealthier folks. 

will74205 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Believe it or not, CHSR only need a friendly
> President and Congress to provide 1:3 matching
> fund to what California already spent of its own
> money to greatly accelerate the construction
> timeline, and thus reduce the project cost due to
> less inflation effect. 

Dream on! They couldn't get it done when they had a "friendly" President.

Reality can buy ugly!

Posted from Android

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The US has not taken aggressive steps toward
> central planning, and probably shouldn't.  The
> government would likely end up outsourcing it to
> real estate developers, oil companies, coal
> companies, etc with all the mess that creates. And
> has created since the 1940s.
>
> The French started with the premise that few
> French people would be far from a passenger
> railroad or intercity bus. Like the Austrians and
> the Swiss, even rural hermits living in a cave
> would have the opportunity to live without a car
> if they chose. And the auto would pay its way with
> a $6 gasoline tax, tolls on most major highways,
> and taxes on larger engines. Short haul airline
> flights would be limited, and rail service would
> be improved. The TGV would be a backbone service.
> That social compact has taken some hits as many
> farmers and rural residents have violently opposed
> any more fuel tax hikes.
>
> People in California are not going to pay a $3
> gasoline tax, much less a $6 tax.
>
> (Even the Tennessee Valley Authority thumbed its
> nose at the President today.  Mr Trump had
> directed TVA to continue buying coal from his
> buddy Murray.  TVA looked at the numbers, and
> decided that $350 million more cost was more than
> it could impose on its rate payers. Even DJT's own
> appointees to the board voted against coal and
> modernizing two old plants.)

Works in France with a population density far greater than ours and someone else fighting the cold war for you. It was never going to work in the US.

Posted from Android

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
(SNIP)
>
> Works in France with a population density far
> greater than ours and someone else fighting the
> cold war for you. It was never going to work in
> the US.
>
> Posted from Android

Right, so comparing the US to France, Germany, China, and other places with good rail isn't a workable task. Waste of time, and certainly not a measure of a "third world country" nonsense.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
>
> Works in France with a population density far
> greater than ours and someone else fighting the
> cold war for you. It was never going to work in
> the US.

Not so.  Population density of France is about 317/square mile, while population density of the entire state of California is 252/square mile.  Not that different to start, but then consider that the California number skews low because of the vast swaths of the state that have far less population density than anywhere in France.  Nobody is proposing to serve those barren parts of California with HSR.  The distance between CHSR’s proposed end points is about 380 miles, which is somewhere between the distance between Paris and the end points of France’s busiest HSR lines (Marseille - 487 miles, Lyon - 289 miles).  The landscape is not nearly as different as HSR opponents like to claim.

Dave

Bottom line here: a lot of money spent over years and no railroad yet. Building a railroad is not complicated. No results; no more money.

Posted from Android

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 The distance between CHSR’s proposed end points is about 380 miles,
> which is somewhere between the distance between Paris and the end points of France’s busiest HSR
> lines (Marseille - 487 miles, Lyon - 289 miles).  The landscape is not nearly as different as HSR
> opponents like to claim.
>
> Dave

Ok, Dave, then tell us, where the French equivalent to Tehachapi Pass (lowest point 4,031 feet) -- between Bakersfield and Palmdale/LA on the CAHSR route -- is in France???
It's also home to the famous Tehachapi Loop where the railroad has to double back on itself to gain elevation....photos from TO posters are frequent on these pages. . 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehachapi_Pass



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/19 17:55 by hazegray.