# First CAHSR construction approved



## CHamilton

Federal Government Approves Construction of First High Speed Rail Segment



> On Wednesday the Federal Railroad Administration issued its Record of Decision for the Merced to Fresno segment of the high speed rail project. This is the final regulatory hurdle for that section, clearing the path for construction to begin in early 2013:
> 
> The Final EIR/EIS identifies the Hybrid alternative as the Agencies’ Preferred Alternative with the Downtown Merced and Mariposa Street Fresno station alternatives. While the potential impacts are analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS, identification of the preferred connection between the Merced to Fresno and San Jose to Merced section or “wye” is deferred. Similarly, no preferred alternative for the Heavy Maintenance Facility is identified at this time.


----------



## George Harris

The state bonds have not yet been sold or offered for sale.


----------



## leemell

George Harris said:


> The state bonds have not yet been sold or offered for sale.


RFPs are due to the CAHSR office by 1 November and winning bidder announcement on 1 December. Bond sales can be anytime between now and when contractor payment is due. The State Treasurers Office will time the sales between now and the actual need date in the most beneficial financial market environment. So who knows?


----------



## Shawn Ryu

I will believe it once it physically begins. Everyone should do the same.

As much as I hate this country's incredible amount of redtapes and other legal garbage once construction begins no one will stop it.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Those planners haven't been getting anywhere for ages. Useless planning. Time for action. Time to build some tracks!


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Those planners haven't been getting anywhere for ages. Useless planning. Time for action. Time to build some tracks!


No! Time to cancel the project, kill the CHSRA, and start fresh to build a smart system!


----------



## Blackwolf

johnny.menhennet said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those planners haven't been getting anywhere for ages. Useless planning. Time for action. Time to build some tracks!
> 
> 
> 
> No! Time to cancel the project, kill the CHSRA, and start fresh to build a smart system!
Click to expand...

I'll respectfully disagree. To kill the project, which has taken over a decade to get this far, won't be to start fresh. It will be to put the final nail in a very full coffin that is passenger rail in the United States. We have an opportunity here, and while it will never be the "ideal" project for anybody and certainly not for everyone, when the system is realized it will be the cornerstone on which every other subsequent HSR system in North America will be built upon. This is not some "Pie in the Sky" brainstorm. Yes, it has been frustratingly long-winded and much more wasteful than it should, but I'm not going to give up.

Nothing good in life ever comes easy. CAHSR proves this saying completely.

If we stop it now, there will not be another to follow. There will be nothing.


----------



## jphjaxfl

I don't live in California, but I am looking forward to riding a high speed train from San Diego to San Francisco when the line opens. Since trends start in California and spread to other parts of US, I think it will cause others to be built. Look at BART, first modern heavy Rail transit system. Look at Amtrak California ,the largest state funded rail system. Look at Metra in Los Angeles, a city that never had commuter rail. Since then, new Commuter Rail start ups in Seattle, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque and other cities. Freeways also started in California and spread to other parts of the US.


----------



## Trogdor

jphjaxfl said:


> Look at Metra in Los Angeles


Metrolink.



> Freeways also started in California and spread to other parts of the US.


Nobody's perfect.


----------



## leemell

Trogdor said:


> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at Metra in Los Angeles
> 
> 
> 
> Metrolink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freeways also started in California and spread to other parts of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody's perfect.
Click to expand...

Would you rather have all surface streets? I can remember that and like the old lady said about being nostalgic for horse transport, nobody remembers the whole world smelled like horses.


----------



## Anderson

leemell said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at Metra in Los Angeles
> 
> 
> 
> Metrolink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freeways also started in California and spread to other parts of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody's perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you rather have all surface streets? I can remember that and like the old lady said about being nostalgic for horse transport, nobody remembers the whole world smelled like horses.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd rather not have a lot of what those freeways gave us (suburban sprawl, interstate-captive transportation policies, and a public used to thinking of long-distance travel by car as "free"), and there are plenty of places where I wish we had less highways. I don't wish we had _none_, but so much transportation policy is wedded to freeways that it's not even funny (let's not forget how much money states get from the Feds that _has_ to go to interstates and _can't_ be redirected to other things).

Freeways aren't evil in and of themselves, but building them seems to trigger a sort of concupiscence with respect to transit policy, wherein their construction drags down any sort of non-car-dependent transit systems and transit planning into a pit of traffic jams, and often takes higher-density developments with it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

leemell said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freeways also started in California and spread to other parts of the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody's perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you rather have all surface streets? I can remember that and like the old lady said about being nostalgic for horse transport, nobody remembers the whole world smelled like horses.
Click to expand...

I'd rather breath horse excrement than carcinogenic particulates, but maybe that's just me.



Anderson said:


> I'd rather not have a lot of what those freeways gave us (suburban sprawl, interstate-captive transportation policies, and a public used to thinking of long-distance travel by car as "free").


Exactly.


----------



## leemell

Texas Sunset said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freeways also started in California and spread to other parts of the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody's perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you rather have all surface streets? I can remember that and like the old lady said about being nostalgic for horse transport, nobody remembers the whole world smelled like horses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd rather breath horse excrement than carcinogenic particulates, but maybe that's just me.
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather not have a lot of what those freeways gave us (suburban sprawl, interstate-captive transportation policies, and a public used to thinking of long-distance travel by car as "free").
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...

On the other hand (I AM a proponent of mass transit) the greater LA area has almost 34,000 Sq Mi and about 18M people. To create adequate mass transit for this area would certainly cost hundreds of billions of dollars and maybe trillions. I certainly remember (when there were only about one million people, much easier to get around) the two hour drive by car from the San Fernando Valley to Long Beach when there were the red car lines and no connection. A trip today of about 35 minutes. Or a trip to San Bernardino of more than three hours, today about one and a half. There was no other way to go even with almost 500 miles of red car lines. The SFV alone is larger than the entire city of Chicago, and the Valley represents just about 25% of the City oi Los Angeles, which is part of LA County, one of five counties in the greater LA area. All forms of transport have their ups and downs, and work better in one place than another, the trick is to match their parameters with application.


----------



## Anderson

Lee,

I'm not going to disagree with your assessment. What I will disagree with, however, is that the situation you're describing regarding the size of the metro area was inevitable. Let's say that most of the old lines remain in place but a government authority takes over. Is it plausible that, working from the rather massive Red Car/Yellow Car system, a better network could have been worked out? I suspect so. Could a lot of street running have been eliminated over time? Of course, and timed lights, reserved lanes, etc. could have done a lot as well. Likewise, how much would it cost to build the LA Freeway system now? I'm thinking hundreds of billions of dollars and at least two decades, assuming a lot of red tape cutting, possibly longer.

Let's also assume something else: What if the LA freeway network had been a fully cost-covering toll network alongside the Red Cars and Yellow Cars? Is it plausible that such a situation, combined with even modest (by comparison to the freeway projects) investment in the streetcar lines, would have resulted in a large network surviving? I suspect so. Yes, some lines would have been dropped, but I suspect that other lines might well have been successfully pitched as well.

Moreover, absent the freeway network, would you have the runaway sprawl that is there now? Or would that have been, if not prevented, at least curbed into a more tightly-packed corridor development pattern?


----------



## AlanB

Agreed Anderson, the key is that LA tore out too much of its rail infrastructure, which of course makes replacing it pricier. But had they kept some of it, instead of caving into the the road warriors, life would be so much better now.

The proof of that can be seen simply by looking at the congestion numbers from the Texas Transportation Institute. NYC ranks number 1 in population by a wide margin over LA; 18.85 million vs. 13.12 million respectively. Yet in every measured category by the TTI, LA ranked #1. That's Excess Fuel Consumed, Annual Delays in hours, Travel Time Index, and Commuter Stress. By contrast NYC ranked 2, 2, 3, & 5 respectively.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

johnny.menhennet said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those planners haven't been getting anywhere for ages. Useless planning. Time for action. Time to build some tracks!
> 
> 
> 
> No! Time to cancel the project, kill the CHSRA, and start fresh to build a smart system!
Click to expand...

You sarcastic or serious?


----------



## johnny.menhennet

leemell said:


> One the other hand (I AM a proponent of mass transit) the greater LA area has almost 34,000 Sq Mi and about 18M people. To create adequate mass transit for this area would certainly cost hundreds of billions of dollars and maybe trillions. I certainly remember (when there were only about one million people, much easier to get around) the two hour drive by car from the San Fernando Valley to Long Beach when there were the red car lines and no connection. A trip today of about 35 minutes. Or a trip to San Bernardino of more than three hours, today about one and a half. There was no other way to go even with almost 500 miles of red car lines. The SFV alone is larger than the entire city of Chicago, and the Valley represents just about 25% of the City oi Los Angeles, which is part of LA County, one of five counties in the greater LA area. All forms of transport have their ups and downs, and work better in one place than another, the trick is to match their parameters with application.


I completely agree. The population of Southern California, when you count San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, LA, Ventura, and Santa Barbara, plus I guess Imperial Counties, is about 18 million, and it's HUGE. I would say LA is making great strides though. Ignoring San Diego and Santa Barbara, just the LA area is doing pretty well for itself, when you look back at what we had 20 years ago. Back then, there were the San Diegans, and that was the entirety of the heavy rail service throughout SoCal. The Red/Purple lines (still only Red back then) were still not open. The entirety of public transit was just the Blue Line. When you look today, the area has two subway lines along very congested routes, both along the 101 through Hollywood and over Cahuenga, and on Wilshire. There is a light rail line to Pasadena, currently being extended further along the 210, which crawls during rush hours. Light rail connections to East LA, USC, all along the 105, Culver City, all exist, with construction/planning progressing on the Crenshaw Line (to be colored pink) from Hollywood to LAX and the Green Line, to Santa Monica both via Culver City on the Expo Line and via Century City on the Purple Line. The Orange Line BRT is incredibly successful, cutting straight across the Valley, along with the recently-merged Silver Line BRT from El Monte to South LA via Union Station. With Commuter Rail, Metrolink was not operating yet. There are now 7 lines carrying 41,000 riders daily - service is still expanding, both with extensions past Riverside to Perris and decreasing headways and increasing frequencies on most lines across Greater LA. I think great strides have been made, and I can't wait for 10 years from now. There may be high-speed commuter service to the Antelope Valley, many more transit lines will be built, and so much more.


----------



## leemell

Anderson said:


> Lee,
> 
> I'm not going to disagree with your assessment. What I will disagree with, however, is that the situation you're describing regarding the size of the metro area was inevitable. Let's say that most of the old lines remain in place but a government authority takes over. Is it plausible that, working from the rather massive Red Car/Yellow Car system, a better network could have been worked out? I suspect so. Could a lot of street running have been eliminated over time? Of course, and timed lights, reserved lanes, etc. could have done a lot as well. Likewise, how much would it cost to build the LA Freeway system now? I'm thinking hundreds of billions of dollars and at least two decades, assuming a lot of red tape cutting, possibly longer.
> 
> Let's also assume something else: What if the LA freeway network had been a fully cost-covering toll network alongside the Red Cars and Yellow Cars? Is it plausible that such a situation, combined with even modest (by comparison to the freeway projects) investment in the streetcar lines, would have resulted in a large network surviving? I suspect so. Yes, some lines would have been dropped, but I suspect that other lines might well have been successfully pitched as well.
> 
> Moreover, absent the freeway network, would you have the runaway sprawl that is there now? Or would that have been, if not prevented, at least curbed into a more tightly-packed corridor development pattern?


One thing you are missing in your analysis. The mid-40's to the 80's was an enormous demand for single family houses from returning veterans and their families then immigrants from the East Coast.. The sprawl resulted from the low density housing being built in response. This low density is not well served by rail lines. Rail only became more in use recently due to the increasing density of this area. When they were building these huge tracts of homes in the 40's and early 50s there were no freeways. The only one in existence then was the Arroyo Parkway. I can remember the first freeways being built in the mid-50s after the tracts in the SFV had already boomed. It is then the synergistic sprawl began.

I forgot to mention that LA had a 13 story limit on the number of floors a commercial or residential building until the late 50's do to seismic concerns and construction techniques. This forced a lot of spread for the core as well.


----------



## leemell

AlanB said:


> Agreed Anderson, the key is that LA tore out too much of its rail infrastructure, which of course makes replacing it pricier. But had they kept some of it, instead of caving into the the road warriors, life would be so much better now.
> 
> The proof of that can be seen simply by looking at the congestion numbers from the Texas Transportation Institute. NYC ranks number 1 in population by a wide margin over LA; 18.85 million vs. 13.12 million respectively. Yet in every measured category by the TTI, LA ranked #1. That's Excess Fuel Consumed, Annual Delays in hours, Travel Time Index, and Commuter Stress. By contrast NYC ranked 2, 2, 3, & 5 respectively.


NY is very high in density (27,000/sq mi) compared to LA (5,000/sq mi) and transportation is a function of distance so those numbers make sense even if it had a large rail infrastructure.

On the subject of the electric rail cars read this for a good discourse on its demise. Basically it went bankrupt massively in the 30's saved for about 10 years only by the needs of WW II. No great conspiracy, just bad economics.


----------



## Anderson

leemell said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed Anderson, the key is that LA tore out too much of its rail infrastructure, which of course makes replacing it pricier. But had they kept some of it, instead of caving into the the road warriors, life would be so much better now.
> 
> The proof of that can be seen simply by looking at the congestion numbers from the Texas Transportation Institute. NYC ranks number 1 in population by a wide margin over LA; 18.85 million vs. 13.12 million respectively. Yet in every measured category by the TTI, LA ranked #1. That's Excess Fuel Consumed, Annual Delays in hours, Travel Time Index, and Commuter Stress. By contrast NYC ranked 2, 2, 3, & 5 respectively.
> 
> 
> 
> NY is very high in density (27,000/sq mi) compared to LA (5,000/sq mi) and transportation is a function of distance so those numbers make sense even if it had a large rail infrastructure.
> 
> On the subject of the electric rail cars read this for a good discourse on its demise. Basically it went bankrupt massively in the 30's saved for about 10 years only by the needs of WW II. No great conspiracy, just bad economics.
Click to expand...

Again, though, how would that density map look if LA had retained better mass transit and/or built less freeways? Yes, there was already sprawl in the 40s, but it got _far_ worse into the 50s, 60s, and beyond. It's only _sort of_ stopped now because of the mountains, but...geez, look at Antelope Valley for an example here. 80-minute commutes as the norm is just absurd, but that's what those folks do.

Edit: Also look at the traffic flow through Cajon Pass at rush hour...you've got a jammed freeway running through the Angeles National Forest.


----------



## johnny.menhennet

Anderson said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed Anderson, the key is that LA tore out too much of its rail infrastructure, which of course makes replacing it pricier. But had they kept some of it, instead of caving into the the road warriors, life would be so much better now.
> 
> The proof of that can be seen simply by looking at the congestion numbers from the Texas Transportation Institute. NYC ranks number 1 in population by a wide margin over LA; 18.85 million vs. 13.12 million respectively. Yet in every measured category by the TTI, LA ranked #1. That's Excess Fuel Consumed, Annual Delays in hours, Travel Time Index, and Commuter Stress. By contrast NYC ranked 2, 2, 3, & 5 respectively.
> 
> 
> 
> NY is very high in density (27,000/sq mi) compared to LA (5,000/sq mi) and transportation is a function of distance so those numbers make sense even if it had a large rail infrastructure.
> 
> On the subject of the electric rail cars read this for a good discourse on its demise. Basically it went bankrupt massively in the 30's saved for about 10 years only by the needs of WW II. No great conspiracy, just bad economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, though, how would that density map look if LA had retained better mass transit and/or built less freeways? Yes, there was already sprawl in the 40s, but it got _far_ worse into the 50s, 60s, and beyond. It's only _sort of_ stopped now because of the mountains, but...geez, look at Antelope Valley for an example here. 80-minute commutes as the norm is just absurd, but that's what those folks do.
> 
> Edit: Also look at the traffic flow through Cajon Pass at rush hour...you've got a jammed freeway running through the Angeles National Forest.
Click to expand...

Commuters in Palmdale have the longest average commute of any city in the country.


----------



## leemell

Anderson said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed Anderson, the key is that LA tore out too much of its rail infrastructure, which of course makes replacing it pricier. But had they kept some of it, instead of caving into the the road warriors, life would be so much better now.
> 
> The proof of that can be seen simply by looking at the congestion numbers from the Texas Transportation Institute. NYC ranks number 1 in population by a wide margin over LA; 18.85 million vs. 13.12 million respectively. Yet in every measured category by the TTI, LA ranked #1. That's Excess Fuel Consumed, Annual Delays in hours, Travel Time Index, and Commuter Stress. By contrast NYC ranked 2, 2, 3, & 5 respectively.
> 
> 
> 
> NY is very high in density (27,000/sq mi) compared to LA (5,000/sq mi) and transportation is a function of distance so those numbers make sense even if it had a large rail infrastructure.
> 
> On the subject of the electric rail cars read this for a good discourse on its demise. Basically it went bankrupt massively in the 30's saved for about 10 years only by the needs of WW II. No great conspiracy, just bad economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, though, how would that density map look if LA had retained better mass transit and/or built less freeways? Yes, there was already sprawl in the 40s, but it got _far_ worse into the 50s, 60s, and beyond. It's only _sort of_ stopped now because of the mountains, but...geez, look at Antelope Valley for an example here. 80-minute commutes as the norm is just absurd, but that's what those folks do.
> 
> Edit: Also look at the traffic flow through Cajon Pass at rush hour...you've got a jammed freeway running through the Angeles National Forest.
Click to expand...

I grew up in the middle of it in the 40's and 50's. In the SFV in 1950 there were houses all the way from Burbank to what is now West HIlls, Encino to Newhall Pass.. In the mid-40s the population was 175,000, by 1950 it passed one million. It was low density sprawl with the Red Lines in place. The last did not disappear until about 1950. The rest of the growth (1970's to 1.75M) was tract infill.


----------



## Nathanael

leemell said:


> I grew up in the middle of it in the 40's and 50's. In the SFV in 1950 there were houses all the way from Burbank to what is now West HIlls, Encino to Newhall Pass.. In the mid-40s the population was 175,000, by 1950 it passed one million. It was low density sprawl with the Red Lines in place. The last did not disappear until about 1950. The rest of the growth (1970's to 1.75M) was tract infill.


Kind of awful timing. It was after the tract infill that the interurban lines really would have been valuable.... but of course they were gone by then. Sometimes it's worth keeping a big piece of infrastructure around even if it doesn't seem immediately useful this decade.


----------



## CHamilton

Once Again, High Speed Rail Prevails In Court



> In a ruling that comes as no surprise to high speed rail supporters, a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled yesterday in favor of the high speed rail project, refusing to grant an injunction to stop construction and indicating he was likely to rule in favor of the project at a final hearing in April.
> 
> Sacramento Superior Court Judge Tim Frawley said at the end of a closely watched three-hour hearing that the 520-mile rail line was so unprecedented in size that he alone could not stop it now….
> 
> Frawley said to issue an injunction, he would have had to rule that construction would harm the farmers more than it would harm the project. But citing the potential the delays would have to raise construction costs and lose billions of dollars in federal funding, he said it was “not close” — the project had more to lose than the farmers….


----------

