Florida HSR news

[Green Maned Lion]

Obviously GML I would defer to George. However, if the plan all along was to reroute the San Joaquins(I can never spell that) to the new alignment as it was completed to enhance the current service, then they did a **** poor job of communicating that didn't they.

Either that, or the media, with their own agenda, chose to obfuscate it as they often do.

 

[George Harris]

Henry:

I have spent most of my working life on rail transportation projects, mostly transit plus high speed rail with a little freight thrown in for flavor. ALL that have been built have carried more people that originally projected, and certainly way more than the nay-sayers. So if I seem a little thin-skinned with some of the people making pronouncements with little to no knowledge or understanding of the subject, I am.

What the media chooses to see of much of what is going on in this field is the same as a person watching a duck swim without realizing that most of the action is below the waterline where it cannot be seen unless you get your head under the water.

Yes, there is a certain amount of disjointedness, most of it politically based. However, the funding for the silly and senseless is far less than those in opposition suppose. On the other hand, a certain amount of geographic disjointedness is to be expected when you look at the population distribution in this country.

As to the interstate highway comparison: People tend to forget that it was in the interstate standards that in low traffic volume areas the Interstates could be built as two-lane highways, but with right of way purchased so that a second side could be added later. The right of way requirement was very low cost, as in all cases the low volume portions were in areas where land values were very low. There were several long stretches that were built that way. I think all now have the second set of lanes in place. Also, wehn the Interstates were built, the segments that would have high traffic volumes were built first. The Interstate construction began in 1956 and was supposed to take 25 years. It took longer, and of course many segments have had lanes added since.

I would suggest a look at the following two reports. You can ignore their conclusions if you so choose, but do look at the map showing the location of the high density areas of the country and the current air traffic flows in these areas. Like the interstates, the objective is to start in the high traffic density areas and work out.

www.america2050.org/pdf/HSR-in-America-Complete.pdf

www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf

Another little thought: The TGV and ICE lines in Europe for the most part do not run city center to city center, but tie into the existing network some distance outside the city centers and finish the trip on the existing network. That little fact is the main driver behind the relatively small vehicles used in the European HSR systems. Recall that European freight traffic is very low in relation to the population and thier freight trains are short and light.

 

[Eric S]

When the interestate highways were built they were part of a grand plan. So even though they were built piece meal everyone knew what the plan was and acepted it. As each section was completed it was hooked into the existing highway system so you could actually drive on it and experience it even though the complete route was not finished. There is no such plan for high speed rail or passenger rail in general. There are web sites with pretty color maps but there is no overall plan as such. Maybe eventually there will be. Lets hope so.

Isn't the CA HSR just such a "grand plan" (a statewide rail plan)? And the first segment (the so-called train to nowhere, although I'd hardly characterize Fresno and Bakersfield as "nowhere") of the initial phase (between the Bay Area and LA area) would seem to be just like the first segments of the Interstate highway system, with the later phases (extensions to Sacramento and San Diego) representing the full system.

 

[JJJ]

I actually can't see how the San Joaquins could use the HSR track. I don't think it's going to happen.

Bakersfield is fine, HSR and Amtrak will share the same station...

But then the HSR tracks continue "express" to Fresno. Amtrak has 4 stops along the way. How does amtrak service those stops on a different set of tracks?

And once arriving at Fresno, the HSR station will be 3/4 of a mile west of the Amtrak station. Would Amtrak abandon their depot for 4 or 5 years?

The only way I can see it working is if the number of trains increases and Amtrak offers express service, Bakersfield-Fresno-Madera (and then all local stops north of that).

I think the San Joaquin grand plan includes going for 6 trains a day (each way) to 10, so that may be possible.

 

[George Harris]

I actually can't see how the San Joaquins could use the HSR track. I don't think it's going to happen.

Bakersfield is fine, HSR and Amtrak will share the same station...

But then the HSR tracks continue "express" to Fresno. Amtrak has 4 stops along the way. How does amtrak service those stops on a different set of tracks?

And once arriving at Fresno, the HSR station will be 3/4 of a mile west of the Amtrak station. Would Amtrak abandon their depot for 4 or 5 years?

The only way I can see it working is if the number of trains increases and Amtrak offers express service, Bakersfield-Fresno-Madera (and then all local stops north of that).

I think the San Joaquin grand plan includes going for 6 trains a day (each way) to 10, so that may be possible.

We are beginning to go around in circles here.

Two things I copied in already:

The FRA requires that any rail project using ARRA funds be capable of demonstrating “operational independence”/ “independent utility” upon completion. A project is considered to have operational independence “if, upon being implemented, it will provide tangible and measurable benefits, even if no additional investments in the same service are made.” Examples of these benefits include “operational reliability improvements, travel‐time reductions, and additional service frequencies resulting in increased ridership.” In practice, this requirement means that the improvements can be used for existing or new intercity rail passenger operations, including Amtrak and other intercity service Importantly, such service is clearly specified as being “intercity service” as opposed to enhanced commuter rail service.

The above is what lead to the selection of a segment in the Central Valley. The specific section was further refined in the following:Board%20Meeting%20Agenda%20Item%203%20-%20Presentation%20on%20Selection%20of%20First%20Section%20-%20Appendix%20A[1].pdf

I could go over the issues you raised point by point, but I really do not want to take the time or hunt around for the source information. Suffice to say, all you points have been considered and dealt with. Also, there is a potential station between Fresno and Bakersfield. The HSR line between Fresno and Bakersfield follows the BNSF track used by Amtrak.

There are six trains each way on the San Joaquin route right now.

 

[JJJ]

If all those points have been considered and dealt with, than why haven't I read about it?

All Ive seen is that "independent utility" means that if the central valley rail is completed, and the rest is canceled, there are enough funds set aside to connect both ends of the track to BNSF.

I've read nothing about funds to replace the stations infrastructure at wasco, corcoran and hanford, and what would be done with the Fresno station which was renovated 6 or so years ago. Especially important is to consider that HSR will pass most of these cities in an elevated structure, making station infrastructure much more expensive than the madera-style slab of concrete with a sign.

Amtrak california is about providing access to the entire state, not simply serving the largest cities in express mode.

Again, I could see amtrak sending some trains down the new tracks, and some down the old ones, but no other solution.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Funny, I thought this thread was on Florida HSR. :unsure:

 

[Trogdor]

If all those points have been considered and dealt with, than why haven't I read about it?

Just a guess, but perhaps you haven't been reading in the correct places.

If you're depending on the news media to tell you everything you need to know, well......

 

[George Harris]

If all those points have been considered and dealt with, than why haven't I read about it?

Just a guess, but perhaps you haven't been reading in the correct places.

If you're depending on the news media to tell you everything you need to know, well......

JJJ, regardless of what impressions are being left by the public press, neither the California High Speed Rail Authority nor the Federal Railroad Administration are staffed by incompetents. You have some very impressive and committed people on both sides here. There is a good deal of information that is public, and I certainly can't provide anything that is not in the public domain. Suggest you do through search on the issues and when doing so skip those sites that provide more heat (opinions) than light (factual info) on the matter.

Go past the "news" and opinionated and find the facts.

The above applies to what is going on in Florida as well.

 

[JJJ]

neither the California High Speed Rail Authority nor the Federal Railroad Administration are staffed by incompetents. You have some very impressive and committed people on both sides here. There is a good deal of information that is public, and I certainly can't provide anything that is not in the public domain. Suggest you do through search on the issues and when doing so skip those sites that provide more heat (opinions) than light (factual info) on the matter.

Go past the "news" and opinionated and find the facts.

The above applies to what is going on in Florida as well.

The agency doesnt have to be staffed with incompetents to make critical mistakes or to mislead the public.

It happens all the time with projects, both public and private.

I'm not saying that is what is happening here, I'm just saying there is ample precedent.

If you are telling me that there is a document spelling out how the San Joaquin can run on the new HSR tracks, and make all San Joaquin local stops, then it is very hard to find.

And if the local press is not providing all the information, than it is a failure of the HSR folks for not providing all the details. Take the Fresno Bee, it is as pro-HSR as can be, and yet not a word has been said about the future of the San Joaquin. Considering their "look at all the fog" story included a picture of people waiting at the amtrak station, it is certainly not because they are unaware of it.

 

[Spokker]

And if the local press is not providing all the information, than it is a failure of the HSR folks for not providing all the details.

Much of the details have not been finalized. The project is in the draft EIR/EIS phase.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

JJJ, the man you are arguing with is one of the many members of the team you are disparaging.

 

[JJJ]

JJJ, the man you are arguing with is one of the many members of the team you are disparaging.

I don't mean to come off as combative or insulting, and if that's how my comment appeared, I apologize.

I have just been following this project for the past few years, including reading almost every publicly available document and have not found the answers to my questions.

I've found that the best way to prevent nimby-style opposition is to cancel any misinformation before it begins. Once a talking point against a project is established, it's hard to kill. A recent california example would be the "rail to nowhere" which was repeated not just in local press, but in papers across the country. A ludicrous argument, but since it wasn't stamped out BEFORE becoming a talking point, it became hard to dispute false article after article.

Another example would be the Ohio HSR, which was constantly criticized on the "39mph average speed"....which again, was a pure falsehood.

And going back a couple of decades, the infamous mcdonalds coffee case, which the majority of the population holds up as a frivolous case, but was actually gross negligence on the part of mcdonalds, not someone digging for money and a crazy court handing it over.

So going back to the original point, either the HSR authority has a clear, thought out plan on how to handle the San Joaquin, but has not presented the case to the public....or they have nothing, and are hiding the fact that they hope the entire HSR line is built and people forget about the san joaquin.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

People are stupid, and the more information you give them... well: You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be misquoted and used against you.

 

[George Harris]

I've found that the best way to prevent nimby-style opposition is to cancel any misinformation before it begins. Once a talking point against a project is established, it's hard to kill. A recent california example would be the "rail to nowhere" which was repeated not just in local press, but in papers across the country.

Doesn't really seem to work that was. Certainly has not with you.

I have tried to think of some polite way to comment on the assurance and certainty of solutions presented by people that are mostly ignorant of the situation, but can't, so I will say no more than this sentence.

And going back a couple of decades, the infamous mcdonalds coffee case, which the majority of the population holds up as a frivolous case, but was actually gross negligence on the part of mcdonalds, not someone digging for money and a crazy court handing it over.

And the basis for the certainty behind this pronouncement is??????

So going back to the original point, either the HSR authority has a clear, thought out plan on how to handle the San Joaquin, but has not presented the case to the public....or they have nothing, and are hiding the fact that they hope the entire HSR line is built and people forget about the san joaquin.

I give up. Nothing about this or any other part of this project is as simple and straightforward as you seem to think. There is really no point in trying to confuse you will facts.

 

[JJJ]

George, every response to me in this thread has been thinly veiled insults, and waving off the concerns, and not a single fact.

Examples:

"I could go over the issues you raised point by point, but I really do not want to take the time or hunt around for the source information."

"Suggest you do through search on the issues and when doing so skip those sites that provide more heat (opinions) than light (factual info) on the matter."

"Doesn't really seem to work that was. Certainly has not with you."

How about answering my questions or linking me to a document that addressed those concerns?

You say you "give up" but at no point have you actually started anything.

Once again, instead of running around calling people ignorant, why not address the simple question? You're just making it seem that I am right and no real plan for running the San Joaquins on the HSR track has been created. All I am asking is to see how amtrak trains could call upon cities like wasco when running on the new tracks which will lack stations at those cities.

As for the mcdonalds case, they served the coffee at a dangerous 180 °F and had been doing so for years even after countless complaints. The media simply passed it along as "stupid women doesnt realize coffee is hot"

Wikipedia has a good summary of the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_coffee_case

 

[George Harris]

George, every response to me in this thread has been thinly veiled insults, and waving off the concerns, and not a single fact.

I enjoy having my job and want to be part of this project way too much to give out information other than links to information that is already available to the public. Therefore, you will have to do your own searching to see what has been publically released. I do not need it for what I am doing.

As for the mcdonalds case, they served the coffee at a dangerous 180 °F and had been doing so for years even after countless complaints. The media simply passed it along as "stupid women doesnt realize coffee is hot"

The "dangerous 180F" is simply lawyer talk. I have been making coffee with boiling water as long as I have been making coffee. Water boils at 212F at sea level, so I would not consider 180F to be beyond reason for the temperature of the coffee in the cup. If it drop it on myself, it is my fault and no one else's.

Either way, the McDonald's example is completely extraneous to the subject at hand.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

George, every response to me in this thread has been thinly veiled insults, and waving off the concerns, and not a single fact.

I enjoy having my job and want to be part of this project way too much to give out information other than links to information that is already available to the public. Therefore, you will have to do your own searching to see what has been publically released. I do not need it for what I am doing.

You write as though you think your views are somehow beyond questioning simply because they came from you. As if your login alone is enough to trump any possible challenge. The level of arrogance you bring to the forum is really a sight to behold George.

The "dangerous 180F" is simply lawyer talk. I have been making coffee with boiling water as long as I have been making coffee. Water boils at 212F at sea level, so I would not consider 180F to be beyond reason for the temperature of the coffee in the cup. If it drop it on myself, it is my fault and no one else's.

Actually, there was a lot more to the story than than the temperature of the coffee or what it would do to the skin of a senior citizen. In fact studying the Liebeck case helped open my eyes to many important aspects of our legal system and to how our media chooses to cover them. If only you were willing and able to put down your knee-jerk playbook for a moment you might learn that not everything you first assumed is always correct. Taking time to reconsider previous assumptions is one of mankind's most invaluable abilities, but only for those who are willing and able to employ it.

 

[Spokker]

Message boards should be for fun arguments, not speech and debate. I cite my sources on term papers, not the Internet. There's always Google if you want more information.

 

[leemell]

George, every response to me in this thread has been thinly veiled insults, and waving off the concerns, and not a single fact.

I enjoy having my job and want to be part of this project way too much to give out information other than links to information that is already available to the public. Therefore, you will have to do your own searching to see what has been publically released. I do not need it for what I am doing.

You write as though you think your views are somehow beyond questioning simply because they came from you. As if your login alone is enough to trump any possible challenge. The level of arrogance you bring to the forum is really a sight to behold George.

The "dangerous 180F" is simply lawyer talk. I have been making coffee with boiling water as long as I have been making coffee. Water boils at 212F at sea level, so I would not consider 180F to be beyond reason for the temperature of the coffee in the cup. If it drop it on myself, it is my fault and no one else's.

Actually, there was a lot more to the story than than the temperature of the coffee or what it would do to the skin of a senior citizen. In fact studying the Liebeck case helped open my eyes to many important aspects of our legal system and to how our media chooses to cover them. If only you were willing and able to put down your knee-jerk playbook for a moment you might learn that not everything you first assumed is always correct. Taking time to reconsider previous assumptions is one of mankind's most invaluable abilities, but only for those who are willing and able to employ it.

I've read the complete report on the coffee suit as well and I'm with George on this one, if you take possession of a cup of hot coffee, YOU are responsible for its safe usage from that point on. It cannot get any hotter than 212 degrees so be prepared for that. All the rest is lawyers and the nanny state.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

You write as though you think your views are somehow beyond questioning simply because they came from you. As if your login alone is enough to trump any possible challenge. The level of arrogance you bring to the forum is really a sight to behold George.

I wouldn't say that George is arrogant so much as he knows what he is talking about in the realm you are discussing with him and I think he is tired of people who know very little on this subject attempting to show him that they know more than he does. And I don't blame him. He can be arrogant on other subjects, which I do find annoying, such as:

Actually, there was a lot more to the story than than the temperature of the coffee or what it would do to the skin of a senior citizen. In fact studying the Liebeck case helped open my eyes to many important aspects of our legal system and to how our media chooses to cover them. If only you were willing and able to put down your knee-jerk playbook for a moment you might learn that not everything you first assumed is always correct. Taking time to reconsider previous assumptions is one of mankind's most invaluable abilities, but only for those who are willing and able to employ it.

Very much so. McDonald's lack of empathy for their customers, and the lack of response in the face of an unbelievable indication of the risks involved, meant that the suit was entirely justified. Unfortunately, withour knowing the history behind that case and the details involved, it is very dificult to see more that a ridiculous lawsuit.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I wouldn't say that George is arrogant so much as he knows what he is talking about in the realm you are discussing with him and I think he is tired of people who know very little on this subject attempting to show him that they know more than he does. And I don't blame him.

I guess I simply don't see the point in mocking guests for misunderstanding the situation while refusing to explain what they got wrong. Seriously, what's the point? Having our own views challenged is not always enjoyable, but over time it can help us to solidify our positions or to discover defects in our assumptions. Choosing to be generous with judgment but stingy with knowledge is a recipe more suited for resentment than enlightenment.