 |
Re: They're at 17 billion by next year???? LMAO.... You are working overtime aren't you?
Author: LES
Date: 07-29-2021 - 12:52
"not clear on is whether stations are included in the cost of the Valley line"
They were to extend 116 million for Fresno and Kings/Tulare stations in this years budget. Merced and Bakersfield's were to be part of the 4.2 billion.
"..mainline electrification in places like the SJV and LA Basin "
They haven't cleared the EIRs for LA. Merced and Bakersfield are the only sections cleared and available for construction.
prop1a's 4.2 billion was to include electrifying SJV.
"isn't really enough to do more than connect what they've got to BNSF for Amtrak".
Valley is almost (relatively speaking) complete, and will cost a significant amount to tie into BNSF. State legislature has no choice but to free up prop 1a funds regardless if they finished to Merced and Bakersfield or not.
Your making my point for me, ie, the authority started in the valley to ensure it got completed. Legislature will not leave it dangling.
FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing I'm not clear on is whether stations are
> included in the cost of the Valley line. I.E
> Fresno, Kings Co., maybe Wasco or (if a miracle
> occurs) Bakersfield? Amtrak won't use it if
> there's no place to stop.
>
> As for money, I think the Valley line will get a
> little more, but not what they want. So they'll
> have somewhere between 8 and 10 for the whole
> affair, which isn't really enough to do more than
> connect what they've got to BNSF for Amtrak to
> use.
>
> I do find myself wondering why we're not looking
> at more basic mainline electrification in places
> like the SJV and LA Basin where the air quality is
> so horrible. Sure, only passenger trains would use
> it at first, and it would have to be genuine
> mainline electrification with ample clearance for
> double-stacks and other high/wide stuff. Building
> another track for it might encourage BNSF or UP
> (depending on where/what) to accept it, as a
> capacity increase with doodads. But it could be
> done, and as with electrifying Caltrain (and
> maybe, in a dream world, lots of Metrolink) it
> would allow faster schedules without necessarily
> running much faster because electrics (even
> locomotive-hauled, not MU) accelerate better than
> diesels. After all, for the Euro-lovers, even
> before HSR there were conventional electric trains
> there running more than 125 mph.
They were to extend 116 million for Fresno and Kings/Tulare stations in this years budget. Merced and Bakersfield's were to be part of the 4.2 billion.
"..mainline electrification in places like the SJV and LA Basin "
They haven't cleared the EIRs for LA. Merced and Bakersfield are the only sections cleared and available for construction.
prop1a's 4.2 billion was to include electrifying SJV.
"isn't really enough to do more than connect what they've got to BNSF for Amtrak".
Valley is almost (relatively speaking) complete, and will cost a significant amount to tie into BNSF. State legislature has no choice but to free up prop 1a funds regardless if they finished to Merced and Bakersfield or not.
Your making my point for me, ie, the authority started in the valley to ensure it got completed. Legislature will not leave it dangling.
FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing I'm not clear on is whether stations are
> included in the cost of the Valley line. I.E
> Fresno, Kings Co., maybe Wasco or (if a miracle
> occurs) Bakersfield? Amtrak won't use it if
> there's no place to stop.
>
> As for money, I think the Valley line will get a
> little more, but not what they want. So they'll
> have somewhere between 8 and 10 for the whole
> affair, which isn't really enough to do more than
> connect what they've got to BNSF for Amtrak to
> use.
>
> I do find myself wondering why we're not looking
> at more basic mainline electrification in places
> like the SJV and LA Basin where the air quality is
> so horrible. Sure, only passenger trains would use
> it at first, and it would have to be genuine
> mainline electrification with ample clearance for
> double-stacks and other high/wide stuff. Building
> another track for it might encourage BNSF or UP
> (depending on where/what) to accept it, as a
> capacity increase with doodads. But it could be
> done, and as with electrifying Caltrain (and
> maybe, in a dream world, lots of Metrolink) it
> would allow faster schedules without necessarily
> running much faster because electrics (even
> locomotive-hauled, not MU) accelerate better than
> diesels. After all, for the Euro-lovers, even
> before HSR there were conventional electric trains
> there running more than 125 mph.
