Plan to use Amtrak as fallback for high-speed rail criticized

[pinto]

Federal rules require another use for the track if the high-speed project unravels. But Amtrak officials have concerns about changing their popular Central Valley route.

By Dan Weikel and Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times
December 27, 2011

When the Obama administration gave California $3.4 billion in startup money for a high-speed rail system, it insisted on a guarantee that the project would not become a white elephant — something critics could brand as a train to nowhere.

The first section of track had to run down the spine of the Central Valley and have another use, should the rest of the bullet train project collapse.

Those requirements are now at the center of an intensifying political battle, waged by critics who say the state's fallback plan to use a 130-mile stretch of track for slower Amtrak service is a sham because there's no guarantee the national rail service will ever use it.

Amtrak said it has no agreement to operate on the track and has not analyzed the possible negative effects on one of its most successful rail lines. Still, the California High Speed Rail Authority has estimated 45 minutes could be shaved off Amtrak's current service between Bakersfield and Merced.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-train-20111227,0,2904247.story

[Vogon_Glory]

1. I Think Amtrak WOULD Use The New Route

I think that Amtrak WOULD use the would-have-been high-speed rail route if it became available. Assuming that it wasn't engineered with the sorts of high-speed "flyover" over- and underpasses that I've seen in Europe, I believe that Amtrak officials would be plum tickled to move over to a rail route that they DON'T have to share with BNSF freight trains and where they could run passenger trains at higher speeds than they do now.

I'm not the sort of railroad historian that some guys I knew in my father's generation were, but I do know that one of the technological developments that was occurring on railroads just as the automobile was beginning to move from rich man's toy to something many middle class people could afford to drive was that passenger tracks were beginning to separate from freight tracks on the privaely-owned railroads.

This trend was halted by the development of paved highways, increased auto travel, and excessive regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission (Yes, I DO believe that SOME regulation IS necessary, but too much really CAN make for serious problems).

If the state of California chooses to build that line (and assuming that the Teab@ggers don't put Amtrak's pelt on their wall like they've been wanting to do for years), Amtrak would quite likely be more than willing to shift over to a new right of way with few if any grade crossings and engineered to allow them to run trains at faster speeds.

[pinto]

2. Good points about shared freight / passenger rails. It's part of the history, I think.

Rail was developed to transport freight not as a passenger transport, per se. And it remains an efficient means to move freight, even in the light of speedier truck transport.

No clue how this will play out. Seems some of the opposition to AMTRAK "relocating" to new rail lines if a bullet train becomes unfeasible after new rail construction comes from local cities that would be bypassed.

The discussions in Sacramento are pretty convoluted. They are in the article here, too.

[Vogon_Glory]

3. I suspect that there's a LOT of NIMBY opposition in addition to r/wing anti-rail propaganda n/t

[pinto]

4. Not sure. I hear both POV's. One from towns that may get bypassed and one

from land owners who may have to sell right of way rights. Don't think either are anti-rail. Seems more of a conflict with the local picture vs. the big picture.

Standard conflicts, I guess.

[NYC_SKP]

5. I'm excited by the prospects, but the resistance to high speed rail is going to be MASSIVE...

Not just NIMBY but from all the usual suspects. Nonetheless, it must be done and it will be done, the sooner the better.

I'm a huge supporter and am going to start attending the high speed rail commission meetings, I want to see the Altamont project done.

Let me know if you've been active on this matter, I can use some help in some efforts...

[pinto]

6. Californians for High Speed Rail -

Californians For High Speed Rail (CA4HSR) is a grassroots, statewide coalition of high speed rail supporters advocating for the high speed rail project approved by California voters in November 2008. Founded in 2005, we exist to educate, inform, and organize Californians about ways they can help make high speed rail a reality in the Golden State. Additionally, CA4HSR also encourages sustainable development of the high speed rail (HSR) system, promotes the building of HSR stations in city centers for transit-oriented developments, as well as developing/improving feeder transit systems.

http://www.ca4hsr.org/