More Wednesday morning rail news:
Kansas City streetcar extension receives FTA go-ahead
Kansas City, Mo., has received clearance from the Federal Transit Agency to advance to the next phase of the planned KC Streetcar Main Street Extension. The Streetcar Authority announced Tuesday that that FTA approved the project to enter the New Starts Engineering phase of the FTA Capital Investment Grants program. In a press release, the agency said this “does not yet represent a federal funding commitment but is a significant milestone that moves the project into the final phase of the competitive federal program.” The authority and its partners are seeking $174 million from the federal government for the $351 million Main Street Extension, which would add 3.6 miles and 16 stations to the existing 2.2-mile, 16-station line.
Subsidies a new issue for California high speed project
California’s high speed rail project faces a new challenge: political and legal challenges over its need for a subsidy when operation begins. The Los Angeles Times reports that when voters approved a ballot initiative to build the rail system between Los Angeles and San Francisco, the measure promised the high speed service would not require operating subsidies. But the truncated portion under construction in the state’s Central Valley will lose money when it begins operation in 2028, according to consultants, which the state will have to cover. If that is the case, says Quentin Kopp, a former state senator and former chairman of the High Speed Rail Board of Directors, “There will be a lawsuit, and I want to be the lead plaintiff.”
BNSF to clean up toxic glass stored on its land
BNSF Railway has agreed to clean up 2 million pounds of toxic crushed glass stored on its property by a now-closed Sioux City, Iowa, recycling company. The Sioux City Journal reports BNSF bought the land in 2014, and EPA inspectors determined in 2017 that the glass — from crushed cathode ray tubes, contained lead concentrations in excess of federal limits. The waste came from Recycletronics, a firm owned by former Sioux City councilman Aaron Rochester, who never obtained the necessary hazardous-waste permit for its storage. He is scheduled to stand trial in August on hazardous-waste charges.
And I think that all you Californians should pay for the California system with California money and California taxes. I live on the East Coast. I’ll never use that line. Why should I or anyone else outside Cali pay for it?
IAN – We have to admire all the systems you mention in California, local and intercity. Compare the Amtrak timetable in California on May 1, 1971, to the Amtrak timetable in California 25 years later, it’s night and day. For many years 100% of the growth in Amtrak ridership was in California – Amtrak train-miles in California skyrocketed while in places like Michigan, Indiana, Minnesota and Ohio Amtrak train-miles were at a dead standstill, Amtrak maybe adding a few riders to existing frequencies. So yes IAN you’re right, rail in California went from a backwater to leading the nation. The trouble with CalHSR is that both the opponents and the advocates miss the point. Rail isn’t about the end points, it’s about the middle points. There are airplanes from Sacramento to San Diego and I assume Sacramento to Ontario or San Francisco to Orange County. CalHSR is about Fresno to San Jose or Bakersfield to Los Angeles. Unfortunately that’s exactly what’s NOT being accomplished. CalHSR poured hundreds of millions into the Central Valley with no clear idea how to get from the Central Valley to through the mountains at either end. An acorn growing into an oak, as you say, is a wonderful thing when it happens but in this case i’s not happening.
Regarding the Kansas City extension. While it is too early to actually begin construction it is the right time (here and across the continent) to make plans for refurbishment of existing infrastructure and expansion of service. The economic fallout from the COVID-19 emergency will be severe and we will be needing a jobs program along the lines of the New Deal. The nation needs the infrastructure, people will be needing work, and the planning needs to be done now. Hopefully such thinking is not too communistic for all concerned. The usual rant against TRAINS for their s***y format, the usual disclaimer, and modown stops sprangletop in rice.
Charles, who would think otherwise? Everyone other than the people you reference, that system will never be self sustaining at rates that people will pay.
Operating subsidies for the truncated middle portion, obviously. However all of us, 100% of the readers of TRAINS MAGAZINE, strongly believe that if the entire system were built as planned the farebox would cover the operating cost. Who could possibly think otherwise?
From tiny acorns do Mighty Oaks grow. I was in high school when BART opened. I watched it grow from a single line, MacArthur to Fremont, then to four lines, now more extensions. After opening up the TransBay route, Concord to Daly City, BART was getting 100% of their day to day operating costs(operating and shop employees and management) from the farebox. To a fair extent, BART tried to reduce employee numbers in the basic design. Automated Train Operation. Fare Machines with magnetic tickets, instead of people handing cash(did wonders for discouraging cash shrinkage). Give California High-Speed Rail a chance to grow into what it can be. California Cities like San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, and Sacramento have all built substantial rail operations essentially from scratch. The statewide base California had at the beginning was the leftover remnants of regulatory staff from the interurban era at the California Public Utilities Commission. As I’ve said before I’m just a worn-out truck driver.
ROBERT RAY — The worst thing about this project is even worse than what you enumerate in your post below: – CalHSR doesn’t have a firm grasp on how to reach either end point from from the Central Valley, or how much it would cost. So we’ll be stuck with a high speed train in the Central Valley. The train will never get through the mountains to San Jose on the north or Burbank to the south.
My memory the original plan sold to the voters said the high speed rail fares would cost more than air fares. In addition there are three major airports in the Bay Area (San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland plus Sacramento) and four in Southern California (LAX, Hollywood-Burbank, Orange County and Ontario plus San Diego), all of them busy because they subdivide their territories and avoid jammed freeways. So in addition to the higher rail fares and longer travel times a rail traveller will likely have to spend more money and time to get to where he really wants to go. This whole project is a payoff to the labor unions and Governor Moonbeam’s (and now Newsom’s) Green Religion beliefs. It makes absolutely zero economic sense and little environmental sense.