The applicable CA law might not necessarily require union membership but does it require a "prevaling wage"? Normally, if any federal money is involved the "prevailing wage" law [Davis-Bacon] applies and that is basically what top union wages are. Some states also have their own "prevailing wage" laws which are similar to the federal law.
My friend's example that I quoted is under a mandated "prevailing wage" law that does not require him to be in a union but he must receives the equivalent of top union wages whenever he works on a government project that falls under "prevailing wage". In PA the most common projects falling under "prevailing wage" are road construction or related and building of/major remodeling to/additions to both public buildings and public schools. NOTE: The "prevailing wage" public school requirement is a particularly tough one on the local communities as it adds approximately 20% to the total cost, which is mainly funded by the local school property tax, without any benefit to speak of. And now there's been several studies that indicate that the few non-union companies that do manage to get a public school contract (which can occur in the less urban areas), all though they are required to pay "prevailing wage"under the prevailing wage laws, normally produce better quality work as measured by problems occurring in the years following the completion of the project.
alphas One major difference is that CA is probably required to hire union labor or, at the least, the infamous "prevailing wage act" requirements will apply. If recent history is any indicator, that will really increase the labor costs and, especially if union labor is required by law, could result in the project taking a lot more time to complete hence greatly increased expense. (Anyone remember Boston's "Big Dig"?) The one in Texas is being built privately so the contractors will only have to pay their normal wages and the work will procide at whatever is the normal pace for the contractor. Local example in my area: a friend drives a dump truck for the largest contractor in the immediate Central PA area. He's told me several times in the last 12 months that his normal pay is just over $19 an hour (and everyone on the job is working at the normal pace) when a private company is paying. When either the state or federal government is providing the funds he gets $36 an hour and the workers slow down.
One major difference is that CA is probably required to hire union labor or, at the least, the infamous "prevailing wage act" requirements will apply. If recent history is any indicator, that will really increase the labor costs and, especially if union labor is required by law, could result in the project taking a lot more time to complete hence greatly increased expense. (Anyone remember Boston's "Big Dig"?) The one in Texas is being built privately so the contractors will only have to pay their normal wages and the work will procide at whatever is the normal pace for the contractor.
Local example in my area: a friend drives a dump truck for the largest contractor in the immediate Central PA area. He's told me several times in the last 12 months that his normal pay is just over $19 an hour (and everyone on the job is working at the normal pace) when a private company is paying. When either the state or federal government is providing the funds he gets $36 an hour and the workers slow down.
California does not have and never will have a Right to Work law, nor do we or will we ever have a law that says workers have to be unionized. Remember, this is California you're talking about, they can hire anyone from anywhere they want, even bringing in out of state contractors and workers, which won't cause an uproar like it is un Nevada with Telsa's Gigafactory.
In response to J Bishop's post (somehow, it does not appear in my Trains Passeenger forum, but did come in my email), I was looking at the rail distance between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. The total distance, by rail, from Oakland to Los Angeles via Barstow, was 596 miles. The Santa Fe knew that it could not really compete with the SP via the San Joaquin Valley if it did not utilize buses between Bakersfield and Los Angeles.
Johnny
rcdryeBus connections were between Oakland (actually 40th and San Pablo in Emeryville) and the Transbay Terminal at First and Mission in San Francisco.
The "Golden Gate" name lasted until 1968, though the fast, coach only trains were gone by 1965, with one direction combined with a mail train. Bus connections were between Oakland (actually 40th and San Pablo in Emeryville) and the Transbay Terminal at First and Mission in San Francisco. In 1958, the station in Emeryville was closed, and bus service ran from Richmond to San Francisco.
Johnny: I totally misunderstood your post. Sorry. Prior to the Golden Gate (1936), the Sante Fe had an all-rail (via Barstow) train set called the Saint/Angel (1912-18), which took 16:45.
Later, I suppose someone could have taken a train to Barstow on the Santa Fe and then transferred to the SF Chief. But that seems highly unlikely.
And your point about using the existing rail route from Bakersfield to LA is well taken. A new, passenger route is essential.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Schlimm, I gave the Santa Fe rail miles from Bakersfield to Barstow and then to Los Angeles; the SP rail miles go directly from Bakersfield to Los Angeles. Therefore, the Santa Fe's rail distance is about one hundred miles greater than the SP's for this part. The Santa Fe used the bus connection so that it would be more competitive. I was not comparing the total mileage.
Incidentally, the Santa Fe had overnight, all-rail, service between the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
Deggesty J. Bishop No chance. The Bakersfield - LAX line through Tehachapi is not suitable for passenger service. Although SP ran them through back in the day, my 1962 Official Guide shows Bak - LAX took about 5 hours, so slow that Santa Fe bussed passengers on that segment. Plus today, that segment is saturated with freights. Any passenger service on that segment requires a new line on a different allignment. The Santa Fe's all-rail route San Francisco-Los Angeles was defintely not competitive with the Southern Pacific's: 269 miles versus 179 miles, for the Santa Fe had to go to Barstow before heading to Los Angeles.
J. Bishop No chance. The Bakersfield - LAX line through Tehachapi is not suitable for passenger service. Although SP ran them through back in the day, my 1962 Official Guide shows Bak - LAX took about 5 hours, so slow that Santa Fe bussed passengers on that segment. Plus today, that segment is saturated with freights. Any passenger service on that segment requires a new line on a different allignment.
No chance. The Bakersfield - LAX line through Tehachapi is not suitable for passenger service. Although SP ran them through back in the day, my 1962 Official Guide shows Bak - LAX took about 5 hours, so slow that Santa Fe bussed passengers on that segment. Plus today, that segment is saturated with freights. Any passenger service on that segment requires a new line on a different allignment.
The Santa Fe's all-rail route San Francisco-Los Angeles was defintely not competitive with the Southern Pacific's: 269 miles versus 179 miles, for the Santa Fe had to go to Barstow before heading to Los Angeles.
Sorry, but your distances are off. Consulting the Sante Fe 1940 TT the Golden Gate was 112 bus miles + 312.8 rail miles. LA to Oakland 8:50, SF 9:10. Compare that with SP's 1971/1957 San Joaquin (valley) route: 477 miles, 11:50/12:45. The1938/1970 Coast Daylights: 471 miles, 9:45/9:50.
(above)
Did the SF Golden Gates have bus connections on BOTH ends?
How good was the ridership?
When did these trains come off? Lasted to Amtrak day?
You must have looked at some segment of the trips. The actual SF to LAX miles, from the timetables in the Official Guide, are SP Coast Line 470, San J. 482, and Santa Fe 434.
CMStPnPschlimm I tend to agree with you, at least about EIS loosening. But I would go beyond that to a system that is used elsewhere and parallels the manner in which the airlines, buses and truck operate: a quasi-government corporation for owning and maintaining the network, with the freight railroads and various passenger companies becoming operators paying user fees. Owning and maintaining track is not how the freight lines make money. Progressive rail management might be happy to rationalize their business: get out of real estate and maintenance; get down to the core of marketing and operations. I don't think the American public would go for that. I think it would be far easier to get the government out of the airline and road building business entirely via privitization potentially using parts of the rail model.
The public would never stand for user-fee for most roads.
Take the UP. Plant, property and equipment are carried on the books at around $49 billion. The quasi-government Railnet takes over maintenance, dispatching etc. Assume the various UPRR RoWs are valued at $40+ billion. If the UP could reinvest that, plus eliminate property taxes [I have no idea how large a bill they actually pay] in return for access to a user-fee national rail grid, I suspect they could make a bigger profit.
Someone correct if this is wrong, Doesn't this realignment mention that there will be some kind of temporary slow continuation to LAX Union station from Bakersfield along a present route ? If so then maybe it will be something like the UK does now. Probably couple a sprinter(s) on at BFD to go to LAX. It might even be some CAT installed at LAX to allow flexiability ?
MidlandMikeThe tunnel making the final LA-SF connection would make the HSR project viable. A line that gets stranded in Bakersfield might never get the support to finish the project. In Switzerland, in addition to the main line base tunnels, they are building a 20 mile tunnel for a regional meter gauge line.
Well the thinking is in CA is that as an extended commute to San Jose and SFO Bakersfield with HSR could become a bedroom community and cheap labor could be thus brought into San Jose and SFO that could afford to live far out because the rail speed was so high. I have mixed feelings about this. For one, tying those folks to a 2-3 hour commute in each direction hurts more than helps the Economy. Secondly, private capital generally flows to smaller capital projects with higher rates of return then tunnelling under the mountains to LA.
So I view this as an attempt by CA to get a large segment done to prove they can do it and then attempting to go for more capital to complete the system to LA because no private company is going to step forwards for a mega project like that. Especially when there are so many smaller projects available with higher returns.
It's a pipe dream to expect Private Enterprise will complete this very costly HSR system. It will be CA again with another reach into the taxpayers pocket.
schlimmI tend to agree with you, at least about EIS loosening. But I would go beyond that to a system that is used elsewhere and parallels the manner in which the airlines, buses and truck operate: a quasi-government corporation for owning and maintaining the network, with the freight railroads and various passenger companies becoming operators paying user fees. Owning and maintaining track is not how the freight lines make money. Progressive rail management might be happy to rationalize their business: get out of real estate and maintenance; get down to the core of marketing and operations.
I don't think the American public would go for that. I think it would be far easier to get the government out of the airline and road building business entirely via privitization potentially using parts of the rail model. Some of our longer freeways I think should be turned into Toll Roads and privitized as a means of reducing our pending public infrastructure expenditure. Airports,which Congress is already looking at should be turned over to private operators as well and removed from the taxpayer dole. I think if we start doing this we resolve a good portion of our Infrastructure investment backlog without spending a dime of taxpayer money.
I think in all three modes the government should still spring for very large projects that have an immediate benefit that perhaps might be pushed into the future by a budget minded private company. For example, new twin rail tunnels into NYC from NJ. Rail Decongestion / traffic flow improvements around Chicago.
daveklepper But the Sante Fe did OK with its Golden Gate streamliners, competing with the Coast Daylight, with a bus transfer to LA at Bakersfield. The tunnel is going to cost as much as the entire remainder of the project!
But the Sante Fe did OK with its Golden Gate streamliners, competing with the Coast Daylight, with a bus transfer to LA at Bakersfield.
The tunnel is going to cost as much as the entire remainder of the project!
The tunnel making the final LA-SF connection would make the HSR project viable. A line that gets stranded in Bakersfield might never get the support to finish the project.
In Switzerland, in addition to the main line base tunnels, they are building a 20 mile tunnel for a regional meter gauge line.
JL ChicagoYou guys are misinterpreting my post. First off the TGV Sud Est Southeast was built in 2 stages between Paris and Lyon. The south half opened in Sep 81 and the northern half in Sep 83. It was gradually extended to Marseilles over the next 2 decades. The Atlantique line was built late 80s and still ends in a corn field near LeMans. But TGVs of course continue at lower speeds on existing tracks to Toulouse and Bordeaux. But the overall trip still saves an hour plus. That's my point. Build in stages.
I agree about the building in stages part, however, the difference between the French model, and California, is that France had existing slower speed passenger lines for the trains to continue on at the end of HSR lines, whereas Bakersfield is a passenger rail dead end. It would have been nice if Cal could have invested some money in adding some passenger capacity to the Tehachapi freight capacity project.
schlimm CMStPnP I'd say the other item with rail HSR projects is they need to be deregulated in the more obvious areas. Doing an Environmental Impact Statement for a location where rails are already in place and upgrading those rails would have minimal impact to the environment.........that would be one item I would eliminate if I had the power. Another I think is we need to loosen up the anti-trust enforcement in specific areas or whatever is preventing total transportation companies. I think we should once again move to an environment where a railroad line can develop a rail line, surrounding real estate, collect rents and leases on the real estate, expand into bus lines and potentially airlines. I think as a country we are still way to paranoid of railroad monopolies and we need to loosen up a little. I tend to agree with you, at least about EIS loosening. But I would go beyond that to a system that is used elsewhere and parallels the manner in which the airlines, buses and truck operate: a quasi-government corporation for owning and maintaining the network, with the freight railroads and various passenger companies becoming operators paying user fees. Owning and maintaining track is not how the freight lines make money. Progressive rail management might be happy to rationalize their business: get out of real estate and maintenance; get down to the core of marketing and operations.
CMStPnP I'd say the other item with rail HSR projects is they need to be deregulated in the more obvious areas. Doing an Environmental Impact Statement for a location where rails are already in place and upgrading those rails would have minimal impact to the environment.........that would be one item I would eliminate if I had the power. Another I think is we need to loosen up the anti-trust enforcement in specific areas or whatever is preventing total transportation companies. I think we should once again move to an environment where a railroad line can develop a rail line, surrounding real estate, collect rents and leases on the real estate, expand into bus lines and potentially airlines. I think as a country we are still way to paranoid of railroad monopolies and we need to loosen up a little.
I'd say the other item with rail HSR projects is they need to be deregulated in the more obvious areas. Doing an Environmental Impact Statement for a location where rails are already in place and upgrading those rails would have minimal impact to the environment.........that would be one item I would eliminate if I had the power.
Another I think is we need to loosen up the anti-trust enforcement in specific areas or whatever is preventing total transportation companies. I think we should once again move to an environment where a railroad line can develop a rail line, surrounding real estate, collect rents and leases on the real estate, expand into bus lines and potentially airlines. I think as a country we are still way to paranoid of railroad monopolies and we need to loosen up a little.
I tend to agree with you, at least about EIS loosening. But I would go beyond that to a system that is used elsewhere and parallels the manner in which the airlines, buses and truck operate: a quasi-government corporation for owning and maintaining the network, with the freight railroads and various passenger companies becoming operators paying user fees. Owning and maintaining track is not how the freight lines make money. Progressive rail management might be happy to rationalize their business: get out of real estate and maintenance; get down to the core of marketing and operations.
Can't agree, Schlimm. In our economy, the big money always goes to owners, not renters. Because of their nature, also because they came along first, the rails have ownership of their right of way, an advantage that will pay dividends bigger and bigger as government's ability to maintain the infrastructure of the competition shrinks.
MidlandMikeThe TGV was first built between Paris and Lyon, the two largest cities in France.
Actually Lyon is #3 and Marseilles is #2. But your point is very solid; HSR routes need to link large endpoint metro areas, with some intermediate cities on route or via connecting transit. Ending HSR at Bakersfield temporarily with slow running on to LA Union Station is a start, only.
The TGV was first built between Paris and Lyon, the two largest cities in France. Bakersfield is the 9th biggest city in California, hardly a desirable terminal for HSR, or transfer to bus to LA. First they should start closing the LA-Bakersfield rail gap, preferably with a base tunnel under Tejon Pass.
blue streak 1 Land costs as Texas is planned along high voltage lines. Plus not as many flyovers and underpasses. $10 - 50 million +++ flyovers add up fast. EDIT----- earthquake protection
Land costs as Texas is planned along high voltage lines. Plus not as many flyovers and underpasses. $10 - 50 million +++ flyovers add up fast.
EDIT----- earthquake protection
I believe the the Japanese HSR comes with the Earthquake measures wether you want them or not, we'll see at construction. Definitely comes with all the Japanese built anti-intrusion monitoring.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.