# California Train to Nowhere



## Hopeful but Skeptical (Dec 3, 2010)

Story from the Los Angeles Times

*High Speed Rail Authority approves what critics call 'train to nowhere'*

* *

*First segment would run from tiny Borden to Corcoran, an area hit so hard by the recession and agriculture declines that it has been dubbed the New Appalachi*a.

*LINK*


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Dec 3, 2010)

In all fairness, USDOT did require that their grants be spent in the Central Valley. And it's just the first section. Saying it's a train from nowhere to nowhere is like stopping by a house that's not finished and saying, "what a waste, it doesn't even have walls."


----------



## MikefromCrete (Dec 3, 2010)

Isn't that section going to be used as a test track? Every project got to start somewhere.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Dec 3, 2010)

This L.A. Times story, along with ongoing coverage of the Golden State's HSR doings, has already been posted here.


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 3, 2010)

> expressed dismay that the initial segment did not link Merced and Fresno, two university towns ... The initial section, however, would not be equipped with maintenance facilities, locomotives, passenger cars or an electrical system necessary to power high-speed trains.


So even if it was built between Merced and Fresno, so what?




It still wouldn't carry passengers!


----------



## Hopeful but Skeptical (Dec 3, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> > expressed dismay that the initial segment did not link Merced and Fresno, two university towns ... The initial section, however, would not be equipped with maintenance facilities, locomotives, passenger cars or an electrical system necessary to power high-speed trains.
> 
> 
> So even if it was built between Merced and Fresno, so what?
> ...


As much I would like hi-speed rail in California, this is really idiotic from a _build-public-support _point of view: put in the roadbed in the middle of nowhere--and that area really is in the middle of nowhere--where no one can see it, and even if they went to see it, there would be nothing operating.

For crying out loud, built a short segment between two Central Valley cities and run a train!! Let the public experience the convenience and build pressure to get more of the system done quickly, rather than at a snail's pace.

I really do think idiots are too much in charge of America's rail system, both present and future!


----------



## George Harris (Dec 3, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> > expressed dismay that the initial segment did not link Merced and Fresno, two university towns ... The initial section, however, would not be equipped with maintenance facilities, locomotives, passenger cars or an electrical system necessary to power high-speed trains.
> 
> 
> So even if it was built between Merced and Fresno, so what?
> ...


*Yes it will.* This sort of thing comes under the heading of, if you can't do what you want to, you get as close as you can with what you are able to do. If you think you can do better, give the people who made the decision a call and tell them how. Otherwise you are simply Monday morning quarterbacking. I am trying to think of a nice way to say put up or shut up, but can't so: Put up or shut up. The people involved in trying to get this thing going are dedicated and committed for the most part and doing the best that can be done within a lot of constraints that it is not worth while to try to explain to geniuses that see all and know all.

There will be ridership. It may not be great, but it will be there. The segment is required to be connected up so that the San Joquin trains can use it, and they will be able to go as fast as teh equipment will allow rather than be limited to 79 mph. In addition, this track will be the break in and test rack for the high speed euqipment. It is the first piece not the whole thing.

It is highly important to get something out there built so that people can see it and show that there is more to this thing than simply generating of reports.


----------



## jis (Dec 3, 2010)

Hopeful but Skeptical said:


> I really do think idiots are too much in charge of America's rail system, both present and future!


Well, since they are all idiots and your are the bright one amongst us, have you considered offering your services to actually do something about it?


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Dec 3, 2010)

Isnt Bakersfield in the central valley? Why not start from there?


----------



## George Harris (Dec 4, 2010)

jis said:


> Hopeful but Skeptical said:
> 
> 
> > I really do think idiots are too much in charge of America's rail system, both present and future!
> ...


And don't forget to bring your checkbook.



> Isn't Bakersfield in the central valley? Why not start from there?


Keep going south from Corcoran and you get to Bakersfield in another 62 miles, which can be promptly put under construction when Mister Hopeful writes his check. I would suspect that this would be the next piece to get built, but it is only a guess on my part, and I have absolutely no part in any decision making on the subject.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Dec 4, 2010)

I assume after the Cali High speed rail is complete, Surfliners, San Joaquin will no longer be in service...


----------



## AlanB (Dec 4, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> I assume after the Cali High speed rail is complete, Surfliners, San Joaquin will no longer be in service...


I wouldn't assume that at all. This is high speed rail, it will probably make at most 1 stop between Sacramento and Bakersfield. The San Joaquin's will still cover the inbetween stops. And the Surfliners not only would do the same between San Diego & LA, but they'll keep plying the northern route which won't be along the HSR route.

What we'd be far more likely to lose is the Coast Starlight.


----------



## Hopeful but Skeptical (Dec 4, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > I assume after the Cali High speed rail is complete, Surfliners, San Joaquin will no longer be in service...
> ...


Mr. Alan B

I was actually thinking of joining your group but I see how you allow snide and personal attacks by the likes of George Harris and "jis" so I think I'll find some other site more suitable for discussion. You are very well aware, I'm sure, that there are numerous well-informed opponents and skeptics of the present plans by the California High Speed Rail Authority, and for the likes of Harris and "jis" to pretend that I am simply an outlier is disingenuous; to allow them to demean me is simply cowardly.

I'd wish you good luck with this forum but that would be disingenuous of me. So I'll just say good-bye.


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 4, 2010)

Hopeful but Skeptical said:


> Mr. Alan B
> 
> I was actually thinking of joining your group but I see how you allow snide and personal attacks by the likes of George Harris and "jis" so I think I'll find some other site more suitable for discussion. You are very well aware, I'm sure, that there are numerous well-informed opponents and skeptics of the present plans by the California High Speed Rail Authority, and for the likes of Harris and "jis" to pretend that I am simply an outlier is disingenuous; to allow them to demean me is simply cowardly.
> 
> I'd wish you good luck with this forum but that would be disingenuous of me. So I'll just say good-bye.


I think you kind of set yourself up for some flack by saying that the current CA HSR plans were developed by "idiots", and thus putting the "idiot" tag on anyone who thinks the plans are OK. I've gotten my share of flack here as well, as we all have. It's kind of part of the open forum experience. You can't be too sensitive and post on forums like this.

The fact that the proposed first HSR segment goes from nowhere to nowhere does not mean that the track will be useless. It will connect to the existing rail line at each end, so conventional trains will be able to use the new track with higher speed (110mph) for trips between somewhere and somewhere. I'm guessing the HSR folks want to get some track laid, and had to consider what sections were available to them from a property acquisition, environmental, and cost standpoint. For better or worse, this is what they decided.

Getting a shovel in the ground to make the project appear viable is a real a good idea assuming it does not end up like I-476 (the Blue Route) here in the Philadelphia area. PennDOT built a 2.5 mile section of the highly controversial highway in 1970. The section did not have any access for traffic (no interchanges), but the idea was that building the isolated portion of the road would help move the project past the opposition. About 21 years later, the section was connected with new sections and went into service. The original section was so old that they had to overlay the concrete pavement since it had deteriorated badly, even with no traffic. Let's hope this 65 mile section of HSR does not become California's Blue Route and sit with no high speed trains for 20 years.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 4, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> Hopeful but Skeptical said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Alan B
> ...


I think that PRR60 covered things pretty well. Had you not opened with such a bold statement, things probably would have been different.

And while you could not have possibly known this as someone just coming to the forum for the first time, Mr. Harris is far more than just a well-informed person. He builds train tracks for a living and has done so in many different countries around the world, including the US. I don't know what his current job is, but it's quite possible that while unintentional you called him and almost certainly people that he knows, idiots.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 4, 2010)

AlanB said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > Hopeful but Skeptical said:
> ...


Yes, I will admit that I did take it somewhat personally. The California HSR happens to be where I am currently working. Therefore, I have to be pretty careful about what I say concerning the project in total and such things as this. I will say that in the group I work in there are people dedicated to seeing this project succeed and to be the best that it can be to the point of near fanaticism, and many of these people have very broad experience that is relevant to the work involved in this project.

As to the selection of the initial segment: here are some items that are publically available found on the California High Speed Rail website, www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/pr_approvedstart.aspx at the bottom you will see "map" which gets you:

http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9430 which shows the location, and

If you go to www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/home.aspx on there you will see

http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9435 which discusses the why behind the what.

Simply put: The initial segment must be usable even if nothing else is ever built. That is part of the driver behind the location selection. Quoting from the van Ark memo:



> the Authority was informed by the FRA that all allocated funding, namely the FY10 funding and the remaining unobligated FY09 ARRA funds must be applied to final design and construction of one of two Central Valley sections (Fresno to Bakersfield or Merced to Fresno) of the California High-Speed Train System.


Also mentioned in the memo were other factors, such as sequencing of the work, testing, and



> The "Independent Utility" / "Operational Independence" requirement associated with the ARRA


There were several things involved in selecting a section that combined a the south part of Merced to Fresno and the north part of Fresno to Bakersfield, that would be difficult to explain, and I am not sure that I should even if I could get it all said correctly.

The location of the named end points in relation to the BNSF route current used by the San Joaquin trains is:

Borden is about 1.5 miles south of Madera, which is at milepost 1019.6 on the BNSF.

Fresno station is at milepost 998.1 on the BNSF, and

Corcoran is at 950.9 on the BNSF.

Bakersfield is at milepost 888.0 on the BNSF.

The high speed rail alignment in general follows the BNSF for most of the distance, but of course with much larger radius curves.


----------



## jis (Dec 4, 2010)

George, the idea of Independent Utility is not just limited to ARRA. It is a requirement for regular FTA and FRA grants too I think. I recall that when ARC and Portal were posited as two separate projects for funding from two independent sources, it had to be established and agreed that each had own independent utility. Of course many rail advocates complained back then saying that both should be done together. But now the wisdom of keeping them separate with independent utility is clear. Now that ARC is killed, the independent utility of Portal keeps that project alive, at least the part that was truly independent of ARC, namely the north span.

I believe the independent utility doctrine came in after the 63rd St tunnel fiasco, where the tunnel was funded in such a way that without further funding it had no utility, and it sat unused for years until funds were finally found to complete the 63rd St IND line. The use of the independent utility doctrine ensures that projects are sliced and funded in such a way that a chunk of funding produces something that can be operated effectively even if the rest of it is never funded, as you rightly point out in your post.


----------



## MattW (Dec 4, 2010)

So then the San Joaquin service will switch on this built-for-220mph-track once it's built? Wow, that'll probably be the smoothest passenger ride in the United States!


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Dec 5, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > I assume after the Cali High speed rail is complete, Surfliners, San Joaquin will no longer be in service...
> ...


The LA - San Diego route of the HSR will not be coterminous with the Surfliner. The HSR will go through the Inland Empire and then turn south. So there's plenty of reason for the Surfliner (north and south of LA) to continue to exist.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Dec 5, 2010)

If it goes through the Inland Empire and turn south does tnhat mean its not gonna stop in LA? Then it automatically becomes useless.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 5, 2010)

AlanB said:


> What we'd be far more likely to lose is the Coast Starlight.


Not until the HSR runs all the way to Seattle. The daylight section of the Starlight up the coast is a useful addition to its main utility of providing service north of Sacramento. What we may lose, if it is ever actually run, is the possible future operation of a "Coast Daylight", the much ballyhooed possibility of an extension of a San Luis Obispo train to Frisco or Sacramento.



Hopeful but Skeptical said:


> Mr. Alan B
> 
> I was actually thinking of joining your group but I see how you allow snide and personal attacks by the likes of George Harris and "jis" so I think I'll find some other site more suitable for discussion. You are very well aware, I'm sure, that there are numerous well-informed opponents and skeptics of the present plans by the California High Speed Rail Authority, and for the likes of Harris and "jis" to pretend that I am simply an outlier is disingenuous; to allow them to demean me is simply cowardly.
> 
> I'd wish you good luck with this forum but that would be disingenuous of me. So I'll just say good-bye.


As Alan mentioned, George Harris is a very competent rail systems engineer, who while I disagree with (sometimes strongly) on political issues, is one of our more knowledgeable and intelligent board members. He is not a Joe Shmo talking out of his arse.

JIS is a well known (at least in the north east) member of NARP and NJ-ARP (on its executive committee, actually), as well as a very accomplished computer systems engineer. I disagree with him often, and on more relevant to this board subjects- and I often find his condescending and sarcastic tone annoying- but like Mr. Harris, while I disagree with him, I consider his opinions with a great deal of respect.

Neither member is a random internet hack equipped with a computer, a keyboard, and no information to back up their opinion. Nor am I, actually.

I consider topics like this silly. Ever since that blasted bridge in Alaska came up, it has become fashion to refer to any project whose current usefulness is not obvious to the great unwashed the "blankity blank to nowhere". I don't know California from a hill of beans. I have been there once, and went through it at a speed of 80 miles an hour. My favorite part of my time in California was the point where we crossed into Oregon, although I was asleep at the time.

However, I have gathered that the two towns being connected by this segment are not the most important in the state. So? Interstate 80 passes through some of the most uninhabited portions of New Jersey. Does it go nowhere? Before it was completed, was it a road to nowhere?

You have to start somewhere. As (even before completion) I-80 cut time from the trip between New York and Pittsburgh, so this will cut time between Bakersfield and Sacramento.

Expressing opinions that any one part of a well-conceived infrastructure project is a waste when taken in view of itself is somewhat... quixotic.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 5, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> If it goes through the Inland Empire and turn south does tnhat mean its not gonna stop in LA? Then it automatically becomes useless.


Go here and see the map: http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.aspx

It has been well publicised that phase 1 will be San Francisco to Los Angeles to Anaheim. Why Anaheim? They want it and have put their money where their mouth is. Stations proposed are:

San Francisco

Milbrae (for SFO Airport)

Redwood City or Palo Alto or somewhere else in the vicinity thereof.

San Jose

Gilroy

Fresno

Visalia/Tulare/Hanford

Bakersfield

Palmdale

Sylmar

Burbank

Los Angeles

Norwalk

Anaheim

It is anticipated that not all trains will stop at all stations. I have no idea of the contents of the proposed operating plan. To give an example: On the Taiwan High Speed Railway, there are four classes of trains: An express Taipei-Panchaio-Taichung-Kaohsiung, a "local" making all stops, a service that makes all stops north of Taichung and runs express between there and Kaohsiung, and a service that runs express between Taipei and Taichung, making all stops south of there. (Panchaio is a suburban Taipei stop.) I would suspect, but have no relevant knowledge, that the California trains will operate in a similar manner, with Fresno playing the part of Taichung. (Taichung is literally Taiwan Middle.)

Additional phases will be Sacramento - Fresno:

Sacramento

Stockton

Modesto

Merced

to junction with the line out of San Francisco which is between Merced and Fresno.

And Los Angeles to San Diego:

from a junction point just south of Los Angeles Union Station to:

City of Industry

Ontario Airport

UC Riverdale (not far from San Bernandino)

Murrieta

Escondido

University City

San Diego

And of course the short segment Anaheim - Irvine

The San Francisco station will be located under a rebuilt Transbay Terminal which is about 2 blocks off Market Street.

The Los Angeles station will be located at the site of Los Angeles Union Station, the relationship to the current tracks yet to be determined.

The proposed location of the Sacramento and San Diego stations may have been determined and made available to the public, but I do not know where they will be.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Dec 6, 2010)

San Diego needs to keep using the Santa Fe depot...I hope.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 6, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> San Diego needs to keep using the Santa Fe depot...I hope.


Unfortunately, there is some sort of urban planning concept going on that relocates the final stop of the existing service northward. I know nothing of the details. Would suggest that you do an iternet search and see what you find. It is not exactly at the top of my issues of the moment.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Dec 6, 2010)

Well at least they should put it near downtown and put a trolley station in it like Santa Fe, and have the Coaster and the Surfliner terminate there as well.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 6, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Well at least they should put it near downtown and put a trolley station in it like Santa Fe, and have the Coaster and the Surfliner terminate there as well.


It was the station for the Surfliner/Coaster I was talking about.


----------



## alanh (Dec 26, 2010)

Really, you could make the same argument during the construction of the Interstate system. It was built in sections, often non-contiguous and not connecting major cities. One of the oldest Interstate legs in Arizona is I-8 between Gila Bend and Casa Grande, built 1962-1965. Hardly anyone drove between those cities, so I-8 was an Interstate to nowhere and should have never been built.

Of course, that's dumb. It was a segment that became a part of a larger system.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 27, 2010)

Mr. Harris, wishing you all the best of luck in getting this started IMHO California is a leader and role model for embracing rail after years of promoting car travel.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 3, 2011)

> And Los Angeles to San Diego:from a junction point just south of Los Angeles Union Station to:
> 
> City of Industry
> 
> ...


There is no UC-Riverdale. There is a UC-Riverside, however.


----------



## George Harris (Jan 3, 2011)

DET63 said:


> > And Los Angeles to San Diego:from a junction point just south of Los Angeles Union Station to:
> >
> > City of Industry
> >
> ...


Noted. I would go back and correct it, but I can't.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 4, 2011)

If there were a UC-Riverdale, you might see Archie, Jughead, Reggie, Betty, Veronica, etc., among the student body.

I don't know if they'd ride HSR, though.


----------

