California High Speed Rail

[metropolismayor]

Originally Posted by DaGaucho

Although I live in the central coast, I don't think HSR would/should be built along this corridor... too out of the way and too low-density.
Now LA to Vegas... that's a winner right there. This might even generate more traffic than LA-SF given the shorter distance and the projected growth of the LV metropolitan area.

Ive always held that an LA-LV HSR line should be built...BUT the casinos should pay for it!

Itd be the best money they could ever spend.

[DaGaucho]

Maybe they are already subsidizing Southwest for putting their hub at McCarran airport

Originally Posted by metropolismayor

Ive always held that an LA-LV HSR line should be built...BUT the casinos should pay for it!

Itd be the best money they could ever spend.

[arturo]

Originally Posted by DaGaucho

Although I live in the central coast, I don't think HSR would/should be built along this corridor... too out of the way and too low-density.
Now LA to Vegas... that's a winner right there. This might even generate more traffic than LA-SF given the shorter distance and the projected growth of the LV metropolitan area.

True, but the current train is ridiculously slow...something like 6hrs from SLO to SJ. That track needs to be upgraded and electrified and the train needs to average at least 75MPH.

[JoshuaSantos]

I think the overall impact of the LA<>SF proposal would be far greater than LA<>LV. The current proposal connects all of the economic centers in California and will definitely have higher ridership.

[hellrazor650]

this would be awesome to have. the initial cost is how much? and also what would a ticket from SF to LA cost??

[JoshuaSantos]

One step closer:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/s...l?ana=from_rss

[phattonez]

What about the UP appeal?

[metropolismayor]

Peninsula cities planning suit to block bullet trains in South Bay
By Will Oremus
Bay Area News Group
Article Launched: 08/08/2008 08:18:31 AM PDT

Menlo Park and Atherton are among a coalition of plaintiffs expected to file a lawsuit today against plans for a $40 billion bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

The two Peninsula cities voted this week to join several environmental and rail groups in fighting the project's environmental certification. They argue it understates the damage the rail line's construction would cause on the Peninsula and elsewhere.

The suit comes as voters statewide are beginning to consider a $10 billion start-up bond for the project on the November ballot. If Proposition 1 passes, construction on the 800-mile high-speed rail network could begin by 2011.

The lawsuit against the California High Speed Rail Authority extends a long-running controversy over the trains' route through the Bay Area. In July, the authority approved an environmental report concluding that the line should run up the Peninsula rather than through the East Bay.

The decision thrilled some groups, including Caltrain, whose tracks would be widened, improved and elevated to accommodate the high-speed trains. It dismayed others, for a variety of reasons.

Some rail advocacy groups, environmentalists, and cities such as Oakland cried that the East Bay was more in need of high-speed rail to combat sprawl. Menlo Park and Atherton joined the fray more out of concern that the widened, elevated tracks on the Peninsula would blight their cities and take land from neighboring property owners.

"We have residents that have lived in Atherton more than 40 years along the tracks," said Atherton Council Member Charles Marsala. "Are they going to relocate these people?"

Marsala and others also fear that the project's eventual cost will spiral far beyond current estimates, leaving taxpayers to make up the difference.

Those disparate interests have joined forces in the lawsuit, which Attorney Stuart Flashman said he plans to file today in Sacramento County Superior Court.

"A lot of the concern is that the (authority's) board wasn't given accurate information about the relative impacts of the two alignments," Flashman said. "The staff of the high speed rail authority, I don't know if I'd say they cooked the books, but they tilted things very strongly to make it look like (the Peninsula alignment) had a lot less impact than it does."

In other words, Flashman said, the supposedly neutral environmental report was "pretty clearly manipulated by Sacramento interests."

Not at all, countered Dan Leavitt, deputy director of the rail authority.

"We are fully prepared to defend the document," he said. "We believe the work was done soundly."

A big advantage of the Peninsula alignment, Leavitt added, is that it doesn't require the trains to cross the San Francisco Bay -- an extremely costly proposition. And while elevating the Caltrain tracks throughout the Peninsula would be expensive and potentially disruptive, the same would be true in the East Bay.

Besides, Leavitt said, the electric trains -- which would slow from a top speed of 220 mph to about 100 or 125 in populated areas -- would be quieter than Caltrain's diesels, and the elevated tracks would eliminate the need for horns and clanging crossing bells.

For Menlo Park Council Member Kelly Fergusson, however, those positives are outweighed by the prospect of rail overpasses forming "this wall dividing our city."

"I think that the high speed rail authority has shown a great deal of disrespect to these communities by completely ignoring our comments" in its environmental report, she said. Legal action is "unfortunately our only option at this point."

[krudmonk]

I love that these idiots currently live by existing tracks but are mad that they'll be subjected to less noisy trains in the future.

[JoshuaSantos]

This is so retarded, how selfish are these people in Atherton and Menlo park. This is NIMBY to the extreme. We have an amazing transit project on the horizon that will have an immense impact in California, and a couple of prudes that don't want to even look at an elevated rail try to burn it to the ground.

Sorry, I think the benefit to millions of people in California outweigh the couple hundred that will be slightly inconvenienced by the sight of off-grade rail (which will even be quieter than existing trains).

[Chafford1]

The whole project may now be cancelled:

http://www.kcbs.com/High-Speed-Rail-...alemat/2765272

[centralcali19]

Originally Posted by Chafford1

The whole project may now be cancelled:

http://www.kcbs.com/High-Speed-Rail-...alemat/2765272

Theres still a chance...read it in the newspaper today...Ca. HSR supporters said they still have time to approve...

[xXFallenXx]

Published Wednesday, August 13, 2008, by the Menlo Park Almanac

Editorial

Can cities stop a juggernaut?

It was a no-brainer for the Menlo Park and Atherton city councils to
join a cost-free lawsuit challenging the route chosen for the high-
speed rail project that will be on this November's state ballot.
What local resident wants the impact of 220-mph-trains in his or
her backyard? [BATN notes: the HSRA has never proposed trains
anywhere near those speeds on the Peninsula.]

The two cities have made no secret of their strong opposition to the
project, which would require grade separations that would rip up
Menlo Park's downtown and create gigantic intrusions into several
Atherton neighborhoods. Menlo Park council member Kelly Fergusson
backed taking a strong stance for the city's interests, saying the
city has seen no indications that the high-speed rail authority has
even considered the concerns of Peninsula communities. "We've been
shown no respect," she said.

But whether either community or the ad hoc group formed by Menlo Park
residents can stop approval of the $9.95 billion bond issue is open
to question, given that recent polling test suggests the bond measure
will pass. Opponents say that result was a fluke, but given the
smooth green sales pitch for high-speed rail, which is playing
especially well among young Californians, we wonder if this
juggernaut can be stopped.

Joining the lawsuit by a group of nonprofits may not cost anything
for Menlo Park and Atherton, but it also won't remove the measure
from the November ballot. If successful, the suit's only impact would
be to force the state to conduct more extensive environmental studies
if voters approve the project on Nov. 4. Such studies could be a
nuisance, but if high-speed rail is approved statewide, we doubt
that additional environmental studies would knock it off the rails.

Even more problematic is the thinking in some Peninsula communities
that an Altamont Pass route, as advocated by the lawsuit, would
alleviate any impact from the high-speed trains. Possibly, but most
maps show that either route would provide San Jose-to-San Francisco
service, which would create the same impact as trains coming over
Pacheco Pass through Gilroy and San Jose. [BATN notes the Altamont
route would split near Fremont with branches to San Jose and San
Francisco. The SF branch would follow the Dumbarton Bridge rail
corridor skirting eastern Menlo Park and bypassing Atherton
to join the Caltrain line in Redwood City.]

There is no doubt that conversion of Caltrain's Peninsula rail
corridor to carry high-speed trains would create a tremendous
disruption of downtown and residential areas in Menlo Park and
Atherton, as well as many other cities up and down the line. The
grade separations required at Ravenswood, Oak Grove, Glenwood and
Encinal avenues in Menlo Park and, Watkins Avenue and Fair Oaks
Lane in Atherton would cut huge gashes in these areas.

Unfortunately, unless voters learn more about this costly project
and act responsibly in a year when the state is facing huge deficits,
the $9.95 billion start for the project could win acceptance based on
the popular green sales pitch that electric trains could lower the
state's carbon footprint. These are powerful arguments when airlines
are sinking under tremendous increases in fuel costs, and prices at
the gas pump exceed $4 a gallon.

Last week it appeared that legislation to update the high-speed rail
measure on the ballot was headed for the governor's desk, but it was
unclear if he would sign it, given his pledge not to sign any bills
until the Legislature passed a budget. Proponents of the rail plan
said Gov. Schwarzenegger would come through, since his own staff
helped with the revision of the old bond measure, which was written
in 2002.

But regardless of whether the rail bond measure is updated, it now
appears that opponents are fighting an uphill battle against a well-
financed group of high-speed rail advocates, who see thousands of
construction jobs, millions of dollars worth of increased business
and a lower carbon footprint from the project. Such a supportive
coalition could run over Menlo Park and Atherton opponents without
even blinking.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAHSR/message/3275

[arturo]

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_10384792

This is an important part of the future CAHSR system.

Caltrain electrification welcomed, except for $1.5 billion price tag
By Shaun Bishop
Bay Area News Group
Article Launched: 09/04/2008 08:28:17 PM PDT

Caltrain's plan to replace its aging diesel locomotives with an all-electric system has been well-received by federal regulators. The design process is progressing nicely and staff members are pumped up about the project.

Now all the rail agency needs is $1.5 billion to pay for it.

The agency's joint powers board Wednesday got its first update in more than a year on the plan to electrify the rail line by 2015.

Caltrain wants to use European-style electric multiple unit cars — lightweight vehicles that can start and stop more quickly and could carry more passengers.

Officials have completed the project's environmental impact documents and about a third of the design, and have developed more realistic estimates for the project's cost.

Building the electric infrastructure, with overhead wires and power boxes, will cost $785 million. Buying 98 new vehicles will cost $422 million. Installing new signals and upgrading railroad crossings will cost $231 million. And managing the whole project will take $100 million.

[xXFallenXx]

So Caltrain needs $1.5 billion to electrify, will any of the almost $1 billion that is on prop 1(a) go to that?

[arturo]

Originally Posted by xXFallenXx

So Caltrain needs $1.5 billion to electrify, will any of the almost $1 billion that is on prop 1(a) go to that?

No, I think this is totally separate, with the counties that operate CalTrain (Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco) paying this bill. What Prop 1a provides is just money for planning and purchasing land I think...I think....Any money coming from the state would pay for expensive grade separations


Prop 1a is a $10B proposition, not $1B

[Tritons]

Originally Posted by metropolismayor

Peninsula cities planning suit to block bullet trains in South Bay
By Will Oremus
Bay Area News Group
Article Launched: 08/08/2008 08:18:31 AM PDT

Marsala and others also fear that the project's eventual cost will spiral far beyond current estimates, leaving taxpayers to make up the difference.

You always hear this from people against any sort of infrastructure project. Geez, by delaying the project any further, they're basically guaranteeing that the project's costs will rise beyond the initial estimates. They're partly to blame for their own concern!

Oddly, some of these same people might end up using the train themselves!

I guess they prefer to keep things stagnant and make no improvements at all, while the rest of the world keeps moving ahead.

[Trixster5]

Originally Posted by arturo

It was my understanding that the first line built would be from SJ to LA, followed by the following extensions: SJ>OAK; SJ>SF; Modesto>SAC; LA>SD. I believe the article only says the norhternmost points will be SF, OAK and SAC which is true. So I think we're good. SJ has historically been a major train hub for the Bay Area due to its location and will be so in the future.

I used to live in San Jose and now live in LA. I still go up to see family, so this would def be a good a way for me to get up there. I wonder how much cheaper it will be then flying. I spend about $100 round trip now to make a trip up to San Jose.

[arturo]

Originally Posted by Trixster5

I used to live in San Jose and now live in LA. I still go up to see family, so this would def be a good a way for me to get up there. I wonder how much cheaper it will be then flying. I spend about $100 round trip now to make a trip up to San Jose.

I suspect it will be priced similar to flying...but that will depend on how much jet fuel costs in 2020 and how fuel-efficient jets are. Trains running off electricity won't be as vulnerable to the price swings so common in flying as fuel costs rise and sink.

But the major advantage of trains is that they travel from City-to-City rather than airport-to-airport. In San Jose the cab ride isn't too much from airport to CBD because it's rather close but LAX and SFO are a $40 cab ride away from their respective CBDs, so taking the train will eliminate most of that expense.

[Penfold]

Originally Posted by arturo

But the major advantage of trains is that they travel from City-to-City rather than airport-to-airport. In San Jose the cab ride isn't too much from airport to CBD because it's rather close but LAX and SFO are a $40 cab ride away from their respective CBDs, so taking the train will eliminate most of that expense.

Even if I'm 80 by the time this thing is built, I'll give my whole social security check to not ever have to see the inside of LAX again.