Railroad Forums
Moderator: lensovet
High-speed train line plan may be derailed For more than a decade, policymakers have debated, studied and scoped out a high-speed rail line that would whisk travelers between downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 1/2 hours.LA Times
But, this year, the $40-billion dream of building a Japanese- or European-style bullet train through the Central Valley may find itself stopped in its tracks.
Even as state lawmakers visited France earlier this month for a glimpse of a passenger train as it set a world rail speed record of 357 mph, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was applying the brakes to California's plan for a high-speed system.
The governor wants "to quietly kill this — and not go out and tell the people that high-speed rail isn't in the future," said state Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter). The lawmaker from the southern San Joaquin Valley is counting on the trains to help bring jobs to his district.
Schwarzenegger asked the Legislature in his 2007 budget to slash money for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. In addition, the governor also wants lawmakers to postpone indefinitely a $9.95-billion rail bond issue that is slated to appear on the November 2008 ballot.
Adam Mendelsohn, a spokesman for the governor, said Schwarzenegger still wanted to build a bullet train — just not anytime soon: "Right now, the voters are crying for relief from congested freeways. That's the immediate priority."
VikingNik wrote:Ugh, how is building an HSR system not helping congestion on the freeways? An extra lane on a highway is not an alternative transportation option.In many cases the best route for a high speed rail line would be alongside or above the motorways. It could replace two lanes.
themallard wrote:That's what they'll tell you!High-speed train line plan may be derailed For more than a decade, policymakers have debated, studied and scoped out a high-speed rail line that would whisk travelers between downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 1/2 hours.LA Times
But, this year, the $40-billion dream of building a Japanese- or European-style bullet train through the Central Valley may find itself stopped in its tracks.
Even as state lawmakers visited France earlier this month for a glimpse of a passenger train as it set a world rail speed record of 357 mph, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was applying the brakes to California's plan for a high-speed system.
The governor wants "to quietly kill this — and not go out and tell the people that high-speed rail isn't in the future," said state Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter). The lawmaker from the southern San Joaquin Valley is counting on the trains to help bring jobs to his district.
Schwarzenegger asked the Legislature in his 2007 budget to slash money for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. In addition, the governor also wants lawmakers to postpone indefinitely a $9.95-billion rail bond issue that is slated to appear on the November 2008 ballot.
Adam Mendelsohn, a spokesman for the governor, said Schwarzenegger still wanted to build a bullet train — just not anytime soon: "Right now, the voters are crying for relief from congested freeways. That's the immediate priority."
Fresno Bee wrote:GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER: State must build high-speed raili want to call attention to the bolded phrases. the last one is most telling – this seems like he's sucking up to the SJ Valley, because this editorial was NOT printed anywhere else and his office didn't issue any official statement in the same vein as this editorial.
By Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
05/04/07 04:48:53
As the recent Bay Area freeway collapse illustrated -- and as a recent Bee editorial correctly pointed out -- Californians need and deserve a diverse array of transportation options. I absolutely believe high-speed rail should be one of those alternatives.
A network of high-speed rail lines connecting cities throughout California would be a tremendous benefit to our state.
Not only would its construction bring economic development and the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs, but once completed, we would also see improvements to our air quality, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, congestion relief on our highways and greater mobility for people living in the Valley and other areas of our state currently underserved by other forms of transportation.
Yet it's been more than 10 years, and the state has already spent more than $40 million in initial planning for the rail line. But there is still no comprehensive and credible plan for financing the system so we can get construction under way.
The High-Speed Rail Authority, the commission in charge of developing a plan for high speed rail in California, estimates the cost of building the system to be more than $40 billion.
Yet so far, the only financing party identified with specificity is the state, which the Authority proposes float a $9.95 billion bond. The remaining 75% of the project cost, or more than $30 billion, has yet to be identified with any specificity or confidence.
Before asking taxpayers to approve spending nearly $10 billion plus interest, it is reasonable to expect the authority and its advisers to identify with confidence where we will find the remaining $30 billion.
A perfect example of what I'm talking about is my $5.9 billion water infrastructure package. By using a public-private partnership approach, we've identified a plan that lays out exactly how we are going to pay for every piece of the proposal, from the reservoirs to the groundwater storage to fixing the Delta to our conservation efforts.
For the reservoir portion, the estimated building cost is $4 billion. We've proposed $2 billion in general obligation bonds for the public portion and $2 billion in lease revenue bonds to be paid for by the water users themselves, i.e. water agencies, irrigation districts, cities, etc. And to ensure that this funding materializes, we are requiring that contracts be in place to pay for the lease revenue bonds before public dollars are spent on the projects.
Identifying the exact funding sources for large transportation projects is more problematic, which is why we need the authority to come up with a well-thought out financing proposal before moving forward.
I want to commend the authority for its great progress so far in completing the necessary environmental studies and identifying future rights-of-way that we would need to acquire.
Yet even the authority's executive director, Mehdi Morshed, says the longer the state waits to build a high-speed rail network, the more expensive it will get. I could not agree more.
That's why I have directed my recent appointees to work with the authority and its financial advisers to develop a comprehensive plan for financing the project in its entirety, so we can make high-speed rail a reality in California once and for all.
Last year, my administration increased funds for the authority to continue its work, and this year, my budget proposes additional funding.
I am willing to explore multiple approaches in order to fund the balance and execute this project -- whether through federal grants, local participation, vendor support, co-development opportunities, public-private partnerships or any other realistic financing plans in which the authority expresses confidence.
I look forward to working with the authority and reviewing its proposal as soon as possible.
But let me be clear: I strongly support high-speed rail for California, and especially for the San Joaquin Valley. Increasing the Valley's transportation options, especially after voters passed Proposition 1B to repair Highway 99, would better serve the region's growing population and enhance the Valley's critical importance to our state's economy.
The promise of high-speed rail is incredible. Looking forward to the kind of California we want to build 20 and 30 years from now, a network of ultra-fast rail lines whisking people from one end of the state to the other is a viable and important transportation alternative and would be a great benefit to us all.
With a responsible plan in place, we can feel secure in delivering high-speed rail and bringing greater opportunity -- and a brighter future -- to all Californians.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is the governor of California.
VikingNik wrote:Ugh, how is building an HSR system not helping congestion on the freeways? An extra lane on a highway is not an alternative transportation option.Most of the traffic consists of commutors travelling short distances to work. This traffic is mostly in the major cities and not midway between them. Investment in a subway system would help relieve congested freeways. A HSR system on the other hand will relieve airport congestion which is also important.
VikingNik wrote:Ugh, how is building an HSR system not helping congestion on the freeways? An extra lane on a highway is not an alternative transportation option.Most of the traffic consists of commutors travelling short distances to work. This traffic is mostly in the major cities and not midway between them. Investment in a subway system would help relieve congested freeways. A HSR system on the other hand will relieve airport congestion which is also important.
Chafford1 wrote:The wisest solution would be to have a number of cheaper costed options as well as the 220mph option.Neither is going for the "west coast acela" approach (Hint, what in the world would 155 mph do for reliving airplane, and highway travel, which in my opinion is the point behind this)
110mph non-electrified upgraded existing line
124mph non-electrified upgraded existing line
125mph non-electrified new line
125mph electrified new line
140mph electrified new line
155mph electrified new line
Going for the expensive 'all or nothing' approach is unlikely to raise the required funds.
Chafford1 wrote:In England, the electrified West Coast Main Line operating 125mph tilting trains gives a fastest London - Manchester journey (185 miles) of 2 hours 8 minutes (1 hr 58 minutes from next year) and fastest London - Glasgow (401 miles) of 4 hours and 25 minutes (4 hours 10 minutes from next year).AMTRAK outside the NEC has an average run speed of what...50mph or there abouts? Ya, lines rated at 125MPH would be quite a step up, would seem like very high speed rail by those who have only known snail rail.
So you can achieve a lot without resorting to dedicated high speed routes, although you still need to invest heavily to upgrade your existing route.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XCReTUXpLa0
