SJ Merc: Brown, Whitman on Opposite Sides of HSR

From the 7/10/2010 San Jose Mercury News:

http://www.webcitation.org/5rbTaeHbW

Which side of the California high-speed-rail debate are you on? The answer could help determine the state's next governor and, in turn, the fate of a project that has divided the Bay Area.

Meg Whitman, the Republican gubernatorial candidate and former eBay CEO, said through a spokeswoman Friday that she "believes the state cannot afford the costs associated with high-speed rail due to our current fiscal crisis." She lives in the wealthy Peninsula town of Atherton, which is ground zero for the anti-bullet-train movement because of concerns about the tracks that would run through the community.

Jerry Brown, the Democratic nominee and state attorney general, started the push for high-speed rail in 1982 as governor and thinks the current plan is a "bold" one that "we should find a way to make work," his spokesman said Friday. Brown lives in Oakland, which is not near the proposed train route.

ugh, please tell me this woman will not have it in her power to derail this project? please?

I think someone edited my quote from the Mercury story to go a little past "fair use" and prevented editing back to that "fair use"... we need to be careful to not run afoul of copyright laws.

I'll refrain from posting links and fair use quotes until I'm assured that they won't be changed and look like I'm violating those laws and the rules of this forum, thanks.

no one blocked anything. however the article is already no longer available at the original URL.
as far fair use is concerned, please see the argument described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebCite#Copyright_issues
I am going to modify the rules of this forum to ask all future postings to provide WebCite URLs rather than original ones so that this is no longer an issue. Thanks!

umtrr-author wrote:
I'll refrain from posting links and fair use quotes until I'm assured that they won't be changed and look like I'm violating those laws and the rules of this forum, thanks.

I don't think you're going to go to jail for this, my friend.

As far as the HSR project goes, it's an okay project. They get the basics right. Altamont is probably better than what they chose, Pacheco, but the Palmdale "detour" is justified on the grounds that the Grapevine has engineering issues.

Based on the latest information, Anaheim to LA is probably going to be shared track between Metrolink, Surfliner and high speed trains, about 90 MPH top speed. Aside from some impacts from grade separation, shared track should placate the communities surrounding the LA-Anaheim leg. Good because it will result in improvements to Metrolink and the Surfliner.

Problems are springing up with the LA River and social justice people. North of Union Station, the parks people say that the community fought hard for a park that may be shut down temporarily for high speed rail construction. The LA River people say that the high speed train route will ruin the river or something.

The Bay Area Peninsula has a very vocal minority of "not in my backyard" types. They want the line underground or not at all. Several lawsuits from been lobbed from this direction.

Some Central Valley cities are fighting over the maintenance facility, in that they want it in their city. The community around Bakersfield High School wants the CHSRA to find another route.

Brown is probably better for high speed rail, but I don't think either of them are going to fix California.

I am a strong supporter of rail but I think the timing of the HSR project as well potential for funding problems are going to make this into a "big dig" type boondoggle before all is said and done.This may go far to scare off potential investment and political commitment on far more worthy rail projects in the future.

I'm in San Diego, a city with a hugely successful lightrail system (that is slated to expand even more, hoorah!), good commuter rail traffic and a seaport served by BNSF. These grandiose long distance "high speed" rail schemes must make sense to the average commuter and be competitive with ticket pricing. For me to take the trolley a couple days a week to work makes sense; its fast and at 5 buck round trip is competitive with gas prices, no parking fees ect. But until I see proof that a round trip to SF will be comparable to a southwest airlines ticket and save some travel time, I remain in the naysayer camp.

Local and regional passenger rail- YES!
Long distance... NO.

kaiserworks wrote:
I'm in San Diego, a city with a hugely successful lightrail system (that is slated to expand even more, hoorah!), good commuter rail traffic and a seaport served by BNSF. These grandiose long distance "high speed" rail schemes must make sense to the average commuter and be competitive with ticket pricing. For me to take the trolley a couple days a week to work makes sense; its fast and at 5 buck round trip is competitive with gas prices, no parking fees ect. But until I see proof that a round trip to SF will be comparable to a southwest airlines ticket and save some travel time, I remain in the naysayer camp.

Local and regional passenger rail- YES!
Long distance... NO.

San-Diego-San Francisco may be long distance, but thats not the average trip. Thats now what this project is about.

Everybody agrees that the northeast regional/acela is successful. Nobody rides from Boston to Newport News however. Thats like 8 hours, the average rider rides maybe 2 hours. Boston to NYC. Philly to DC.

In your case, that would be San Diego-Los Angeles which I think you will agree is a very good regional rail trip.

Just because it's one line doesnt mean its one trip. It's rail, not a plane. The same seat can be sold multiple times during one journey.

You take the train from San Diego to LA. My sister will take it from LA to Fresno. Ill take it from Fresno to San Jose. Someone will take it from San Jose to San Francisco. Not one long distance trip, multiple regional trips.

It's like the highway system. What was the last time you took I-5 to Canada? Nobody does that, but every section is well patronized by local users.

jamesinclair wrote:

kaiserworks wrote:
I'm in San Diego, a city with a hugely successful lightrail system (that is slated to expand even more, hoorah!), good commuter rail traffic and a seaport served by BNSF. These grandiose long distance "high speed" rail schemes must make sense to the average commuter and be competitive with ticket pricing. For me to take the trolley a couple days a week to work makes sense; its fast and at 5 buck round trip is competitive with gas prices, no parking fees ect. But until I see proof that a round trip to SF will be comparable to a southwest airlines ticket and save some travel time, I remain in the naysayer camp.

Local and regional passenger rail- YES!
Long distance... NO.

San-Diego-San Francisco may be long distance, but thats not the average trip. Thats now what this project is about.

Everybody agrees that the northeast regional/acela is successful. Nobody rides from Boston to Newport News however. Thats like 8 hours, the average rider rides maybe 2 hours. Boston to NYC. Philly to DC.

In your case, that would be San Diego-Los Angeles which I think you will agree is a very good regional rail trip.

Just because it's one line doesnt mean its one trip. It's rail, not a plane. The same seat can be sold multiple times during one journey.

You take the train from San Diego to LA. My sister will take it from LA to Fresno. Ill take it from Fresno to San Jose. Someone will take it from San Jose to San Francisco. Not one long distance trip, multiple regional trips.

It's like the highway system. What was the last time you took I-5 to Canada? Nobody does that, but every section is well patronized by local users.

I understand what your saying but LA to San Diego has 20 plus high speed, efficient commuter trains a day (plus Amtrak) with stops in between. I ride it on occasion. There are connections with all the regional lines, light rail, DMU's (Sprinter), trolley, subway ect ect.

WHY spend the billions in a bankrupt state when existing technology and infrastructure is already in place. That money could be much better spent, and money saved by expanding this regional/local service (like a direct line into LAX or double tracking many areas). If I'm going from LA to SF, the train will never be competitive with a $100 round trip - 45 minute flight.

HSR does make sense in some areas but more often it does not. In the Northeast where you already had massive ROW's and as little as 30-60 minutes travel between half a dozen major cities it make sense. There just isn't anything between LA and SF or LA and Vegas worth stopping for unless your just on vacation and Amtrak already goes to Santa Barbra. It is the same in Europe; if I am traveling on the Amsterdam/Brussels/Paris corridor I (and everyone else) takes HSR, but If I'm going Paris to Milan, I (and everyone else) hops a flight. We as proponents of rail need to realize that not every project is worthy of the limited funds available. In one giant multi-billion dollar HSR project, we will have shot the wad (to use slang), think of the dozens or hundreds of regional rail projects that could have been upgraded, extended and refined with money left over for a rainy day (slow economy). In a modern, jet age transportation system, rail is (or should be) the foundation but its not the panacea. Each type of transport has its strength and weaknesses and should be realized as such.

When and if the money is spent on HSR and the public see's this simple mathematical equation of billions of tax dollars spent vs. a return of longer travel times and higher ticket prices, there will be hell to pay. This will be the silver bullet for the anti-rail lobby to kill any and all rail projects for a long, long time.

Nowhere worth stopping between LA and SF? How about stopping to pick up people who want to travel from the Central Valley and actually be connected to the rest of the state. I hear you can get a plane ticket to Fresno. It's going to cost you.

Fresno and Bakersfield are areas where you aren't going to find airfare deals but will they in turn generate commuter rail traffic of note?

kaiserworks wrote:Fresno and Bakersfield are areas where you aren't going to find airfare deals but will they in turn generate commuter rail traffic of note?

It's not commuter rail traffic. It's business travel to the state capital, or either of the keystone cities - San Fran in the north, and LA in the south. And how about to Silicon Valley? How about a connection to an international flight out of SFO from Bakersfield?

I get your cautionary point about the market, but I don't think you're doing your argument many favors by using the term "commuter rail" when applied to HSR.

kaiserworks wrote:Fresno and Bakersfield are areas where you aren't going to find airfare deals but will they in turn generate commuter rail traffic of note?

It may not be cost effective to operate a plane from LAX to Fresno, but it may prove worthwhile to operate a train service that stops in Burbank, Sylmar, Palmdale and Bakersfield on the way, and continues onto Merced, Gilroy, San Jose, some mid-Peninsula station, SFO and Downtown San Francisco.

That's the big difference when you operate a train. There are numerous trip pairs that can be completed on the same run. And you'll still have the express runs that bypass most stations.

I understand what your saying but LA to San Diego has 20 plus high speed, efficient commuter trains a day (plus Amtrak) with stops in between. I ride it on occasion. There are connections with all the regional lines, light rail, DMU's (Sprinter), trolley, subway ect ect.

LOL! high speed? are you kidding? LA to San Diego takes 2 hours and 50 minutes. It's a distance of 120 miles by highway. That's an average speed of just over 40 miles an hour.

High speed? Please. We need REAL high speed rail. CAHSR will finally provide it at speeds exceeding the "baby" HSR that Acela ushered in.

lensovet wrote:

I understand what your saying but LA to San Diego has 20 plus high speed, efficient commuter trains a day (plus Amtrak) with stops in between. I ride it on occasion. There are connections with all the regional lines, light rail, DMU's (Sprinter), trolley, subway ect ect.

LOL! high speed? are you kidding? LA to San Diego takes 2 hours and 50 minutes. It's a distance of 120 miles by highway. That's an average speed of just over 40 miles an hour.

High speed? Please. We need REAL high speed rail. CAHSR will finally provide it at speeds exceeding the "baby" HSR that Acela ushered in.

"Want" should be the word in red. Again, I am pro-rail, but mark my words, this rail project will be the mother of all "big digs". A monetary black hole that rail skeptics will use to torpedo any and all local and regional rail projects for the rest of my foreseeable lifetime.

The heyday of modern commuter rail projects started approx 15 years ago. Economic realities mandate that era has come to a cyclical end, perhaps for the next decade. Now is the time to upgrade, finish and expand existing systems like LA and SD lightrail systems, SF's BART extensions, ect ect with the dwindling resources (taxes).

WE ARE BROKE as a state and a country. Where will the money come from? Because your politicians "promise" it, doesn't mean that it will materialize. And, if it does, supporters of rail will collectively shoot their load (money) like an overexcited teenager on this dubious boondoggle, all while tax dollars dry up and local systems fail to be completed.

jb9152 wrote:

kaiserworks wrote:Fresno and Bakersfield are areas where you aren't going to find airfare deals but will they in turn generate commuter rail traffic of note?

It's not commuter rail traffic. It's business travel to the state capital, or either of the keystone cities - San Fran in the north, and LA in the south. And how about to Silicon Valley? How about a connection to an international flight out of SFO from Bakersfield?

I get your cautionary point about the market, but I don't think you're doing your argument many favors by using the term "commuter rail" when applied to HSR.

I understand that there will be riders that need to go to SAC from Fresno for the day or LA to Bakfersfield BUT if HSR cannot rely on commuters; ie- folks that ride that line to and from work 52 weeks a year, it will never be break-even let alone viable.